Mishnah Ketubot 1

בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת לַיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי, וְאַלְמָנָה לַיּוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי. שֶׁפַּעֲמַיִם בַּשַּׁבָּת בָּתֵּי דִינִין יוֹשְׁבִין בָּעֲיָרוֹת, בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי וּבַיּוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי, שֶׁאִם הָיָה לוֹ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, הָיָה מַשְׁכִּים לְבֵית דִּין: A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow on Thursday. The reason for the former is that twice a week courts convene in the towns, on Monday and Thursday, so that if the husband had a claim concerning the bride’s virginity when consummating the marriage on Wednesday night, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim.

בְּתוּלָה, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם. וְאַלְמָנָה, מָנֶה. בְּתוּלָה אַלְמָנָה, גְּרוּשָׁה, וַחֲלוּצָה, מִן הָאֵרוּסִין, כְּתֻבָּתָן מָאתַיִם, וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. הַגִּיּוֹרֶת, וְהַשְּׁבוּיָה, וְהַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, פְּחוּתוֹת מִבְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, כְּתֻבָּתָן מָאתַיִם, וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים: With regard to a virgin, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, and with regard to a widow, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. With regard to a virgin who is a widow, a divorcée, or a ḥalutza who achieved that status from a state of betrothal, before marriage and before consummation of the marriage, for all of these their marriage contract is two hundred dinars, and they are subject to a claim concerning their virginity, as their presumptive status of virginity is intact. With regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed with regard to the captive, or who converted with regard to the convert, or who were freed with regard to the maidservant, when they were less than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is two hundred dinars, as their presumptive status is that of a virgin. Even if they were subject to intercourse when they were younger than that age, the hymen remains intact. And they are subject to a claim concerning their virginity.

הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנָּה, וְקָטָן שֶׁבָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלָה, וּמֻכַּת עֵץ, כְּתֻבָּתָן מָאתַיִם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מֻכַּת עֵץ, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מָנֶה: With regard to an adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old; or a minor boy less than nine years old who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman; or a woman who had her hymen ruptured by wood or any other foreign object, for all these women their marriage contract is two hundred dinars, as their legal status is that of a virgin. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The marriage contract of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood is one hundred dinars, as physically, since her hymen is not intact, she is no longer a virgin.

בְּתוּלָה אַלְמָנָה, גְּרוּשָׁה, וַחֲלוּצָה, מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מָנֶה, וְאֵין לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. הַגִּיּוֹרֶת, וְהַשְּׁבוּיָה, וְהַשִּׁפְחָה, שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ, וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, יְתֵרוֹת עַל בְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, כְּתֻבָּתָן מָנֶה, וְאֵין לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִין: With regard to a virgin who is either a widow, a divorcée, or a ḥalutza who achieved that status from a state of marriage, for all these women their marriage contract is one hundred dinars, and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. Since they were married, even if they did not engage in intercourse with their husband, their presumptive status is that of non-virgins, and the second husband cannot claim that he was misled with regard to their status as virgins. And similarly, with regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed with regard to the captive, or who converted with regard to the convert, or who were freed with regard to the maidservant, when they were more than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. When they married, their presumptive status was that of a non-virgin.

הָאוֹכֵל אֵצֶל חָמִיו בִּיהוּדָה שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ. אַחַת אַלְמְנַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַחַת אַלְמְנַת כֹּהֵן, כְּתֻבָּתָן מָנֶה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ גוֹבִין לַבְּתוּלָה אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, וְלֹא מִחוּ בְיָדָם חֲכָמִים: A man who eats at the house of his father-in-law in Judea after betrothal and with-out witnesses to attest to the fact that he was not alone with his betrothed is unable to make a claim concerning virginity after marriage because in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is that he secluded himself with her, and the concern is that it was he who engaged in intercourse with her. For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. A court of priests would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest, twice the sum of the standard marriage contract for a virgin, and the Sages did not reprimand them.

הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא מָצָא לָהּ בְּתוּלִים, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת, מִשֶּׁאֵרַסְתַּנִי נֶאֱנַסְתִּי, וְנִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֶךָ. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר, לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא אֵרַסְתִּיךְ, וְהָיָה מִקָּחִי מֶקַּח טָעוּת. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים, נֶאֱמֶנֶת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְחֶזְקַת בְּעוּלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִתְאָרֵס, וְהִטְעַתּוּ, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ: There is a case of one who marries a woman and did not find her hymen intact, and she says: After you betrothed me I was raped, and his, i.e., her husband’s, field was inundated, meaning that it is his misfortune that she is not a virgin, as she was raped after betrothal. And he says: No; rather, you were raped before I betrothed you, and my transaction was a mistaken transaction. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, this woman assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse when she was not yet betrothed and she misled him, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת מֻכַּת עֵץ אָנִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא דְרוּסַת אִישׁ אָתְּ, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים, נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְחֶזְקַת דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ: In a case where she says: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, i.e., she admits that her hymen is not intact but claims that it was not ruptured through intercourse, and the groom says: No; rather, you are one who was trampled by a man, and your hymen was ruptured through intercourse, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible and her claim is accepted because she certainly knows what actually happened. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, she retains the presumptive status of one who was trampled by a man, until she brings proof supporting her statement that her hymen was ruptured by wood.

רָאוּהָ מְדַבֶּרֶת עִם אֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק, אָמְרוּ לָהּ מַה טִּיבוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכֹהֵן הוּא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים, נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְחֶזְקַת בְּעוּלָה לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ: If people saw a woman speaking to one man, but they did not recognize him, and they said to her: What is the nature [tivo] of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

הָיְתָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מַה טִּיבוֹ שֶׁל עֻבָּר זֶה. מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכֹהֵן הוּא. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים, נֶאֱמֶנֶת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְחֶזְקַת מְעֻבֶּרֶת לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ: Similarly, if a single woman was pregnant, and people said to her: What is the nature of this fetus? And she says to them: It is from a man called so-and-so and he is a priest; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who conceived from a Gibeonite or a mamzer, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מַעֲשֶׂה בְתִינוֹקֶת שֶׁיָּרְדָה לְמַלֹּאת מַיִם מִן הָעַיִן, וְנֶאֱנְסָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, אִם רֹב אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר מַשִּׂיאִין לַכְּהֻנָּה, הֲרֵי זוֹ תִנָּשֵׂא לַכְּהֻנָּה: Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving a young girl who descended to fill her jug with water from the spring, and she was raped, and the identity of the rapist was unknown. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: If the majority of the people of the city marry their daughters to members of the priesthood, this young girl may be married to a member of the priesthood.

מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, לְבַעְלָהּ. וִירֻשָּׁתָהּ, הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. בָּשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ, שֶׁלָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר, בִּזְמַן שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר, לָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים, וְלוֹ אֶחָד. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי, לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים, וְלָהּ אֶחָד. שֶׁלּוֹ, יִנָּתֵן מִיָּד. וְשֶׁלָּהּ, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת: A lost object found by a wife and the wife’s earnings belong to her husband. And with regard to her inheritance, the husband enjoys the profits of this property in her lifetime. If she is humiliated or injured, the perpetrator is liable to pay compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as relevant. This payment belongs to her. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When it is an injury that is in a concealed part of the woman’s body, she receives two parts, i.e., two-thirds, of the payment for humiliation and degradation, and the husband receives one part, i.e., one-third, as the injury affects him as well. And when it is an injury that is in an exposed part of her body, he receives two parts, as he suffers public humiliation due to her condition, and she receives one part. His payment should be given to him immediately. And with her portion, land should be purchased with it, and he enjoys the profits of that property.

הַפּוֹסֵק מָעוֹת לַחֲתָנוֹ, וּמֵת חֲתָנוֹ, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, יָכוֹל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר, לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן, וּלְךָ אִי אֶפְשִׁי לִתֵּן: In the case of one who pledges to set aside a sum of money for his son-in-law as part of a dowry, and his son-in-law dies before receiving the money, the terms of the dowry do not transfer to the brother, who is now the yavam of the widow. The Sages said: The father-in-law can say to the yavam: To your brother, I wanted to give this money, but to you I do not want to give it.

פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ אֶלֶף דִּינָר, הוּא פוֹסֵק כְּנֶגְדָּן חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר מָנֶה. וּכְנֶגֶד הַשּׁוּם, הוּא פוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חֹמֶשׁ. שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה וְשָׁוֶה מָנֶה, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. שׁוּם בְּמָנֶה, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד סֶלַע וְדִינָר. וּבְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, הִיא נוֹתֶנֶת חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת. מַה שֶּׁחָתָן פּוֹסֵק, הוּא פוֹסֵק פָּחוֹת חֹמֶשׁ: The mishna addresses another matter. If the woman had pledged to bring in for him one thousand dinars in cash as a dowry, he then pledges, in the marriage contract, that he will give her fifteen hundred dinars against them. That is, he writes in the marriage document that in the event of divorce or his death, he will pay her that greater amount. And against the appraisal of goods such as utensils and other movable items that are included in the dowry, he pledges one-fifth less than the amount of the evaluation. This is because movable property is generally assessed at a value one-fifth higher than the actual value, and he cannot earn any money from these items. If the appraisal is set at one hundred dinars and the property is actually worth one hundred dinars, then since the appraisal is conducted at market value he has a claim to property worth only one hundred dinars. Likewise, he may not record a decreased sum of property. His recorded appraisal of the movable property that she brings into the marriage is one hundred dinars only when she is giving thirty-one sela and one dinar, equal to 125 dinars. This is because the actual value is one-fifth less than the inflated evaluation, as explained. And similarly, he pledges four hundred dinars against her assets only when she is giving five hundred, based on the inflated assessment of their worth, such that the real value is four hundred dinars. In contrast, what the son-in-law pledges according to the amount of the dowry that the bride brings, he pledges one-fifth less in the marriage contract, which is the actual value of the property.

פָּסְקָה לְהַכְנִיס לוֹ כְסָפִים, סֶלַע כֶּסֶף נַעֲשֶׂה שִׁשָּׁה דִינָרִים. הֶחָתָן מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֲשָׂרָה דִינָרִין לַקֻּפָּה, לְכָל מָנֶה וּמָנֶה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה: If she pledged to bring him money and not articles to serve as a dowry, her sela, i.e., four dinars, becomes six dinars with respect to the husband’s obligation in the marriage contract. This follows the standard outlined in the previous mishna: The groom increases his obligation by one half since he will profit from this money. Additionally, the groom accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account for her needs, for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.

הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ סְתָם, לֹא יִפְחֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. פָּסַק לְהַכְנִיסָהּ עֲרֻמָּה, לֹא יֹאמַר הַבַּעַל כְּשֶׁאַכְנִיסָהּ לְבֵיתִי אֲכַסֶּנָּה בִכְסוּתִי, אֶלָּא מְכַסָּהּ וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְכֵן הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת הַיְתוֹמָה, לֹא יִפְחֹת לָהּ מֵחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. אִם יֵשׁ בַּכִּיס, מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתָהּ לְפִי כְבוֹדָהּ: With regard to one who marries off his daughter with the terms of the dowry unspecified, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If the bride’s father pledged to bring her into the marriage bare, by saying that he refuses to give her anything, the husband should not say: When I bring her into my house, I will clothe her with my clothing, but not beforehand. Rather, he must clothe her while she is yet in her father’s house, and she enters the marriage with the clothing in hand. And similarly, with regard to a charity administrator who marries off an orphan girl, he must not give her less than fifty dinars. If there are sufficient resources in the charity fund, the charities provide even more for her, furnishing a dowry and her other needs according to her dignity.

יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאַתָּה אִמָּהּ אוֹ אַחֶיהָ מִדַּעְתָּהּ, וְכָתְבוּ לָהּ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לְהִנָּתֵן לָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הִשִּׂיא אֶת הַבַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, יִנָּתֵן לַשְּׁנִיָּה כְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַן לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ: With regard to a minor orphan girl whose mother or brothers married her off, even with her consent to a small dowry, she retains her rights to a proper dowry. And thus, if they wrote for her a dowry of one hundred or of fifty dinars, she may, upon reaching majority, exact from her mother, or brothers, or their respective estates the sum of money that is fit to be given to her as a dowry, which is one-tenth of the family’s estate. Even if she agreed to forgo part of this sum as a minor, she may collect it as an adult. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the father married off the first daughter before he died, a dowry should be given to the second daughter in the same manner that he gave one to the first daughter. And the Rabbis say: There is no ready standard, since sometimes a person is poor and then becomes wealthy, or a person is wealthy and then becomes poor, so a family’s allowance for dowries is subject to change. Rather, the court appraises the property and gives her the appropriate sum.

הַמַּשְׁלִישׁ מָעוֹת לְבִתּוֹ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת נֶאֱמָן בַּעְלִי עָלָי, יַעֲשֶׂה הַשָּׁלִישׁ מַה שֶׁהֻשְׁלַשׁ בְּיָדוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, וְכִי אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא שָׂדֶה וְהִיא רוֹצָה לְמָכְרָהּ, הֲרֵי הִיא מְכוּרָה מֵעַכְשָׁיו. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּגְדוֹלָה. אֲבָל בִּקְטַנָּה, אֵין מַעֲשֵׂה קְטַנָּה כְלוּם: With regard to one who transfers money by means of a third party for his daughter to purchase a field after she marries, is the daughter allowed to assert control over the money? If she says after she marries: My husband is trustworthy for me, so give him the money to buy the property for me, her wishes are not honored. The third party should execute the agency that was entrusted in his power; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The daughter has authority: And were it only a field and she wanted to sell it, it could be sold immediately. Just as she would have authority to control the field, she may control the money assigned for her. The mishna qualifies: In what case is this statement said? With respect to an adult woman. But with respect to a minor girl, any action of a minor girl is nothing from a legal standpoint; a minor would have no authority in this matter.

הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּהָנוֹת לוֹ, עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכֹהֶנֶת, שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה: With regard to one who vows and obligates his wife, prohibiting her from benefiting from him or his property, if his vow will remain in effect for up to thirty days, he must appoint a trustee [parnas] to support her. But if the vow will remain in effect for more than this amount of time, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the husband is an Israelite, then if his vow will remain in effect for up to one month, he may maintain her as his wife; and if it will be two months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. But if he is a priest, then he is given extra time: If the vow will remain in effect for up to two months, he may maintain her, and if it will be three months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The reason for this is that it is prohibited for a priest to marry a divorcée, including his own ex-wife, and therefore if he divorces her and later regrets his decision he will not be able to take her back.

הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִטְעֹם אַחַד מִכָּל הַפֵּרוֹת, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, יוֹם אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם, שְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכֹהֶנֶת, שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵּם, שְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה: One who vows and obligates his wife, requiring her not to taste a particular type of produce, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he is an Israelite, then if the vow will remain in effect for one day he may maintain her as his wife, but if it will be two days he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And if he is a priest, then if the vow will be in effect for two days he may maintain her; for three days he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract.

הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַשֵּׁט בְּאַחַד מִכָּל הַמִּינִין, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בַּעֲנִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן קִצְבָּה. וּבַעֲשִׁירוֹת, שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם: One who vows and obligates his wife, requiring her not to adorn herself with a particular type of perfume, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Yosei says that one must distinguish between different types of women: For poor women, this applies only when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow, and for wealthy women, who are accustomed to adorning themselves more elaborately, if she is prohibited from doing so for thirty days, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract.

הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא עִמָּהּ בָּעִיר, חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם. שְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בְעִיר אַחֶרֶת, רֶגֶל אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם. שְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה: With regard to one who vows and obligates his wife not to go to her father’s house, when her father is with her in the same city, if the vow is to be in effect up to one month, he may maintain her as his wife. If the vow is for two months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And when her father is in a different city, if the vow is to be in effect until at most one pilgrim Festival, i.e., until the next pilgrim Festival, he may maintain her as his wife. Although the wife often visits her parents during the Festival, she is capable of refraining one time. For three Festivals, however, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract.

הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ. וְאִם הָיָה טוֹעֵן מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר, רַשָּׁאי. אָמַר לָהּ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֹּאמְרִי לִפְלוֹנִי מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתְּ לִי אוֹ מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתִּי לָךְ, אוֹ שֶׁתְּהֵא מְמַלְּאָה וּמְעָרָה לָאַשְׁפָּה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה: Additionally, one who vows and obligates his wife not to go to a house of mourning to console the mourners, or to a house of feasting for a wedding, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Why is this so? Because it is as if he were locking a door in front of her. And if he claimed he did so due to something else, meaning he is concerned about inappropriate conduct there, he is permitted to do so. If he said to her: The vow will be void on condition that you tell so-and-so what you told me, or what I told you, or on condition that she fill something up and pour it into the refuse, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara will explain all of these cases thoroughly.

וְאֵלּוּ יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתֻבָּה, הָעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דַּת מֹשֶׁה וִיהוּדִית. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא דַּת מֹשֶׁה, מַאֲכִילָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֻשָּׂר, וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, וְלֹא קוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה, וְנוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶּמֶת. וְאֵיזוֹהִי דַת יְהוּדִית, יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ, וְטוֹוָה בַשּׁוּק, וּמְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כָּל אָדָם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְדָיו בְּפָנָיו. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹלָנִית. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא קוֹלָנִית, לִכְשֶׁהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ וּשְׁכֵנֶיהָ שׁוֹמְעִין קוֹלָהּ: And these are examples of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract: A woman who violates the precepts of Moses, i.e., halakha, or the precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom. The Mishna explains: And who is categorized as a woman who violates the precepts of Moses? This includes cases such as when she feeds him food that has not been tithed, or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the legal status of a menstruating woman, or she does not separate a portion of dough to be given to a priest [ḥalla], or she vows and does not fulfill her vows. And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who, for example, goes out of her house, and her head, i.e., her hair, is uncovered; or she spins wool in the public marketplace; or she speaks with every man she encounters. Abba Shaul says: Also one who curses his, i.e., her husband’s, parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud woman. And who is defined as a loud woman? When she speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים, תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתֻבָּה. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מוּמִין וְנִמְצְאוּ בָהּ מוּמִין, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ בָהּ מוּמִין, תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתֻבָּה. כָּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִין בַּכֹּהֲנִים, פּוֹסְלִין בַּנָּשִׁים: In the case of one who betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows incumbent upon her, and it was subsequently discovered that there are vows incumbent upon her, she is not betrothed. This is because if the condition is not fulfilled, the betrothal is nullified. If he married her without specification and it was subsequently discovered that vows were incumbent upon her, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract, since he discovered a deficiency about which she had not initially informed him. However, this does not invalidate the betrothal, since he did not make any explicit condition. If he betrothed her on condition that she has no blemishes, and it was subsequently discovered that she did have blemishes, she is not betrothed. But if he married her without specification, and it was subsequently discovered that she had blemishes, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract. The mishna clarifies what qualifies as a blemish: All of the blemishes that are listed in tractate Bekhorot involving significant physical deformities that disqualify priests from service similarly disqualify betrothal of women, as a mistaken transaction.

הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, הָאָב צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמִּשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה נוֹלְדוּ בָהּ מוּמִין הַלָּלוּ וְנִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל, הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין אֵלּוּ וְהָיָה מִקָּחוֹ מֶקַּח טָעוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר. אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן. וְאִם יֵשׁ מֶרְחָץ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, אַף מוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בוֹדְקָהּ בִּקְרוֹבוֹתָיו: If she has blemishes and she is still in her father’s house, as she has not yet gotten married, the father must bring proof that these blemishes appeared on her after she became betrothed, and therefore his field was flooded, i.e., it is the husband’s misfortune, since she developed the problem after the betrothal. But if she has already gotten married and entered the husband’s domain when her blemishes are discovered, the husband must bring proof that she had these blemishes before she was betrothed, and consequently the transaction of betrothal was a mistaken transaction. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement, that a husband can claim to have found blemishes in his wife, on account of which he wants to void the betrothal, said? With regard to hidden blemishes. But with regard to visible blemishes, he cannot claim that the betrothal was in error, as he presumably saw and accepted them before the betrothal. And if there is a bathhouse in the city, where all the women go to bathe, even with regard to hidden blemishes he cannot make this claim, because he examines her through the agency of his female relatives. He would have asked one of his relatives to look over the woman he is about to marry.

הָאִישׁ שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בוֹ מוּמִין, אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בַּמּוּמִין הַקְּטַנִּים. אֲבָל בַּמּוּמִין הַגְּדוֹלִים, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא: In the case of a man who developed blemishes after marriage, the court does not force him to divorce his wife. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to minor blemishes. However, with regard to major blemishes, which will be defined later in the Gemara, the court does force him to divorce her.

וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא, מֻכֵּה שְׁחִין, וּבַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוֹס, וְהַמְקַמֵּץ, וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחֹשֶׁת, וְהַבֻּרְסִי, בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ בָם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְּׂאוּ וּבֵין מִשֶּׁנִּשְּׂאוּ נוֹלָדוּ. וְעַל כֻּלָּן אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהּ, יְכוֹלָהּ הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר, סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֲנִי יְכוֹלָהּ לְקַבֵּל, וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מְקַבֶּלֶת הִיא עַל כָּרְחָהּ, חוּץ מִמֻּכֵּה שְׁחִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמִקָּתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְצִידוֹן בְּבֻרְסִי אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת וְהָיָה לוֹ אָח בֻּרְסִי, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר, לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וּלְךָ אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל: And these are the defects for which the court forces him to divorce her: One afflicted with boils; or one who has a polyp; or one who works as a gatherer, or one who works as a melder of copper, or one who works as a tanner of hides, all of whose work involves handling foul-smelling materials. Whether he had these defects before they got married, or whether they developed after they got married, the court forces them to divorce. And with regard to all of these, Rabbi Meir said: Even though he stipulated with her ahead of time that he suffers from this particular ailment or this is his line of work, she can nevertheless demand a divorce and say: I thought I could accept this issue but now I realize I cannot accept it. And the Rabbis say: If she initially agreed she must accept it against her will, apart from a situation in which her husband is afflicted with boils. In that case the Rabbis concede that he must divorce her, because the disease consumes his flesh when they engage in marital relations. The mishna relates an additional account: An incident occurred in Sidon involving a certain tanner who died childless, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. This brother was required to enter into levirate marriage with the widow. The Sages said: She can say: I could accept living with a tanner for your brother but I cannot accept it for you, and therefore he must perform ḥalitza with her.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִתְאָרֵס, מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁמּוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָּם. נָפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, תִּמְכֹּר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא תִמְכֹּר. אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים, שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה, קַיָּם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הוֹאִיל וְזָכָה בָאִשָּׁה, לֹא יִזְכֶּה בַנְּכָסִים. אָמַר לָהֶם, עַל הַחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁין, אֶלָּא שָׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַיְשָׁנִים. נָפְלוּ לָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת וְנִשֵּׂאת, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה, קַיָּם. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן עֲקִיבָא, אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הוֹאִיל וְזָכָה בָאִשָּׁה, לֹא יִזְכֶּה בַנְּכָסִים. אָמַר לָהֶם, עַל הַחֲדָשִׁים אָנוּ בוֹשִׁין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם מְגַלְגְּלִים עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַיְשָׁנִים: With regard to a woman to whom property was bequeathed before she was betrothed, and she was then betrothed, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give the property as a gift, and the transaction is valid. However, if the property was bequeathed to her after she was betrothed, Beit Shammai say: She may sell it as long as she is betrothed, and Beit Hillel say: She may not sell it. Both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that if she sold it or gave it away as a gift, the transaction is valid. Rabbi Yehuda said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman herself through betrothal, will he not acquire the property from the moment of their betrothal? Why, then, is her transaction valid? Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property that she inherited after marriage, we are ashamed, because it is unclear why she cannot sell it, as it is hers; and you also seek to impose upon us a prohibition with regard to the old property that she owned beforehand? If the property was bequeathed to her after she was married, both these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that if she sold the property or gave it away, the husband may repossess it from the purchasers. If she inherited the property before she was married and then was married, Rabban Gamliel says: If she sold or gave the property away, the transaction is valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya said that the Sages said before Rabban Gamliel: Since he acquired the woman through marriage, will he not acquire the property? Rabban Gamliel said to them: With regard to the new property we are ashamed, and you also seek to impose upon us a prohibition with regard to the old property?

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חוֹלֵק בֵּין נְכָסִים לִנְכָסִים. נְכָסִים הַיְדוּעִים לַבַּעַל, לֹא תִמְכֹּר. וְאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה, בָּטֵל. שֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִים לַבַּעַל, לֹא תִמְכֹּר. וְאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה, קַיָּם: Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between one type of property and another type of property: Property that is known to the husband she may not sell once she is married, and if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is void. Property that is unknown to the husband she may not sell, but if she sold it or gave it away, the transaction is valid.

נָפְלוּ לָהּ כְּסָפִים, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. פֵּרוֹת הַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. וְהַמְחֻבָּרִין בַּקַּרְקַע, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁמִין אוֹתָן כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּפֵרוֹת וְכַמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּלֹא פֵרוֹת, וְהַמּוֹתָר, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הַמְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע, שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, שֶׁלָּהּ, וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת: If money was bequeathed to a woman as an inheritance while she was married, land is acquired with it, and the husband consumes the produce of the land while the principal remains hers. If she inherited produce that is detached from the ground, it is considered like money; therefore, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce of the land. With regard to produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates how much the land is worth with the produce, and how much it is worth without the produce, and the difference between these sums is the surplus value that belongs to the woman. Land is then acquired with the surplus and he consumes the produce. And the Rabbis say: That which is attached to the ground is his, as he is entitled to the produce from her property and he may therefore eat from it. And that which is detached from the ground is hers, like all other money she brings to the marriage, and land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מְקוֹם שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹחוֹ בִכְנִיסָתָהּ, הוּרַע כֹּחוֹ בִיצִיאָתָהּ. מְקוֹם שֶׁהוּרַע כֹּחוֹ בִכְנִיסָתָהּ, יָפֶה כֹחוֹ בִיצִיאָתָהּ. פֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע, בִּכְנִיסָתָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ וּבִיצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ. וְהַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, בִּכְנִיסָתָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ וּבִיצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ: Rabbi Shimon says: In a case where his right is superior upon her entrance to the marriage, his right is inferior upon her exit if he divorces her. Conversely, in a case where his right is inferior upon her entrance, his right is superior upon her exit. How so? With regard to produce that is attached to the ground, if she married while owning such produce, upon her entrance it is his, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and upon her exit, when he divorces her, it is hers, as it is considered part of her property. But in the case of produce that is detached from the ground, upon her entrance it is hers, and if such produce is detached before their divorce, upon her exit it is his, as he was already entitled to all the produce of her property.

נָפְלוּ לָהּ עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת זְקֵנִים, יִמָּכְרוּ וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, לֹא תִמְכֹּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שְׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. נָפְלוּ לָהּ זֵיתִים וּגְפָנִים זְקֵנִים, יִמָּכְרוּ לְעֵצִים וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא תִמְכֹּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שְׁבַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. הַמּוֹצִיא הוֹצָאוֹת עַל נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ, הוֹצִיא הַרְבֵּה וְאָכַל קִמְעָא, קִמְעָא וְאָכַל הַרְבֵּה, מַה שֶּׁהוֹצִיא הוֹצִיא, וּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל אָכָל. הוֹצִיא וְלֹא אָכַל, יִשָּׁבַע כַּמָּה הוֹצִיא וְיִטֹּל: If elderly slaves or maidservants were bequeathed to her, they are sold and land is acquired with them, and the husband consumes the produce of the land. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She need not sell these slaves and maidservants, because they are assets of her paternal family, and it would be shameful to the family if they were sold to others. Likewise, if old olive trees or grapevines were bequeathed to her, they are sold and land is acquired with them, and he consumes the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: She need not sell them, because they are assets of her paternal family. With regard to one who pays expenditures for his wife’s property in an effort to improve it, if he paid a large amount in expenditures and ate only a small amount of produce before he divorced her, or if he paid a small amount in expenditures and ate a large quantity of produce, that which he spent he has spent, and that which he ate he has eaten. Therefore, none of it need be returned. However, if he paid expenditures for the property and did not eat any part of it, he takes an oath with regard to how much he paid and then takes his expenditures.

שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהּ נְכָסִים, מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁמּוֹכֶרֶת וְנוֹתֶנֶת וְקַיָּם. מֵתָה, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ בִכְתֻבָּתָהּ וּבַנְּכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִין וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, יַחֲלֹקוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, נְכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן, כְּתֻבָּה בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל, נְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִים וְהַיּוֹצְאִים עִמָּהּ בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב: When a married man dies childless, his brother, the yavam, is obligated to perform levirate marriage or release the widow, the yevama, through a ceremony known as ḥalitza. With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam who had property bequeathed to her, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that she may sell or give this property away, and the transaction is valid. If this woman died, what should they do with her marriage contract and with the property that comes and goes with her, i.e., her usufruct property? Beit Shammai say: Since she was not yet remarried, the husband’s heirs, such as his brothers or father, divide the property with her father’s heirs. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status, and therefore the marriage contract is in the possession of the husband’s heirs, as they are responsible for its payment. As for the property that comes and goes with her, it is in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father, as it belongs to the woman.

הִנִּיחַ אָחִיו מָעוֹת, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. פֵּרוֹת הַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. הַמְחֻבָּרִין בַּקַּרְקַע, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁמִין אוֹתָן כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּפֵרוֹת וְכַמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּלֹא פֵרוֹת, וְהַמּוֹתָר, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִים בַּקַּרְקַע, שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה בָהֶן. קָדַם הוּא, זָכָה. קָדְמָה הִיא, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. כְּנָסָהּ, הֲרֵי הִיא כְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְתֻבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן: If his deceased brother left money as part of his estate, land to be used as a lien on her marriage contract is acquired with it, and the yavam consumes the produce. Similarly, if the deceased brother left produce that is detached from the ground, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce. If he left behind produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates the properties to determine how much they are worth with the produce, and how much they are worth without the produce. And as for the surplus, which is the value of the produce, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce. And the Rabbis say: Produce that is attached to the ground is his. Therefore, it is not used in the purchase of land, but the yavam may eat it. As for the produce that is detached from the ground, which is not mortgaged to her marriage contract, whoever takes possession first has acquired it. If the yavam takes possession of the property first, he has acquired it and may use it as he wishes, but if she is first, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce. After the yavam has married her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense, except that the responsibility for payment of her marriage contract is carried out through mortgaging the property of her first husband, not that of the yavam.

לֹא יֹאמַר לָהּ, הֲרֵי כְתֻבְּתִיךְ מֻנַּחַת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, אֶלָּא כָּל נְכָסָיו אַחֲרָאִין לַכְּתֻבָּה. וְכֵן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, הֲרֵי כְתֻבְּתִיךְ מֻנַּחַת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, אֶלָּא כָל נְכָסָיו אַחֲרָאִין לִכְתֻבָּתָהּ. גֵּרְשָׁהּ, אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הֶחֱזִירָהּ, הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַנָּשִׁים וְאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא כְתֻבָּתָהּ בִּלְבָד: Therefore, the yavam may not say to her: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. He may not set aside a designated sum of money for this payment. Rather, all of the first husband’s property is mortgaged for her marriage contract as long as he has not divorced her. And similarly, in general a man may not say to his wife: Your marriage contract is placed on the table. Rather, all his property is mortgaged for her marriage contract. If the yavam divorced her after performing levirate marriage, she has only her marriage contract, as she does not retain any rights to the rest of her first husband’s property. If he subsequently remarried her, she is like all women, and she has nothing but her marriage contract. In this case, the property of her first husband is no longer pledged for the payment of her marriage contract.

אַלְמָנָה נִזּוֹנֶת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים, מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהֶן, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ. יוֹרְשֶׁיהָ, יוֹרְשֵׁי כְתֻבָּתָהּ, חַיָּבִין בִּקְבוּרָתָהּ: A widow is sustained from the property of orphans. Her earnings belong to them, and they are not obligated to see to her burial. Her heirs, who inherit her marriage contract, are obligated to see to her burial.

אַלְמָנָה, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין, מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין, מוֹכֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין. מִן הָאֵרוּסִין, לֹא תִמְכֹּר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, וְכָל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, לֹא תִמְכֹּר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין: A widow, whether widowed from betrothal or from marriage, sells her husband’s property when not in court. Rabbi Shimon says: A widow from marriage sells when not in court, but a widow from betrothal may sell only in court, because she does not receive sustenance from her husband’s property. She receives only her marriage contract, and anyone who does not receive sustenance may sell only in court.

מָכְרָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ, מִשְׁכְּנָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ, נָתְנָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ לְאַחֵר אוֹ מִקְצָתָהּ, לֹא תִמְכֹּר אֶת הַשְּׁאָר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מוֹכֶרֶת הִיא אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, וּמוֹכֶרֶת לִמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין, וְכוֹתֶבֶת, לִמְזוֹנוֹת מָכָרְתִּי. וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא תִמְכֹּר אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין: If a woman sold all or part of her marriage contract, or if she mortgaged all or part of her marriage contract, or if she gave away as a gift all or part of her marriage contract to another, then she sells the remainder only in court. And the Rabbis say: She sells even four or five times, and she is not obligated to sell everything at one time. And despite selling several times, she sells for her sustenance even when not in court, and she writes in the bill of sale: I sold this for my sustenance.And a divorcée, who does not receive sustenance, sells only in court.

אַלְמָנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם וּמָכְרָה שָׁוֶה מָנֶה בְמָאתַיִם אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בְּמָנֶה, נִתְקַבְּלָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ מָנֶה וּמָכְרָה שָׁוֶה מָנֶה וְדִינָר בְּמָנֶה, מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. אֲפִלּוּ הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אַחֲזִיר אֶת הַדִּינָר לַיּוֹרְשִׁין, מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם מִכְרָהּ קַיָּם עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּשַׁיֵּר בְּשָׂדֶה בַּת תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּים, וּבְגִנָּה בַּת חֲצִי קַב, וּכְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בֵּית רֹבַע. הָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, וּמָכְרָה לָזֶה בְמָנֶה וְלָזֶה בְמָנֶה וְלָאַחֲרוֹן יָפֶה מָנֶה וְדִינָר בְּמָנֶה, שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹן בָּטֵל וְשֶׁל כֻּלָּן מִכְרָן קַיָּם: In the case of a widow whose marriage contract was worth two hundred dinars and she sold property that was worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, or if she sold property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, she has received payment of her marriage contract and can demand nothing more. If her marriage contract was worth one hundred dinars and she sold property worth one hundred dinars and a dinar for one hundred dinars, the sale is void because she sold property that did not belong to her. Even if she says: I will return the additional dinar to the heirs, the sale is nevertheless void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Actually, the sale is valid. It is not considered an invalid sale until there is an error so extreme that had there been no mistake, there would have remained in the field an area required for sowing nine kav of seed, the smallest area of land worth working. In that case, the orphans can reasonably claim that they are unwilling to give up on the land that belongs to them. However, if the error is less than this, it is enough if she returns the remainder to the orphans. And in the case of a garden, the sale is void if, had there been no error, there would have remained an area required for sowing a half-kav of seed, as this is the smallest size of garden worth working. Or, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, an area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed. If her marriage contract was worth four hundred dinars, and she sold property to this one for one hundred dinars, and she sold property to that one for one hundred dinars, and again to a third one, and she sold property to the last one worth one hundred dinars and a dinar for only one hundred dinars, the sale of the last property is void, as the price she charged was below the market value. And all of the others, their sale is valid, as they were sold for the correct price.

שׁוּם הַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁפִּחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹסִיפוּ שְׁתוּת, מִכְרָן בָּטֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מִכְרָן קַיָּם. אִם כֵּן מַה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה. אֲבָל אִם עָשׂוּ אִגֶּרֶת בִּקֹּרֶת, אֲפִלּוּ מָכְרוּ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה בְּמָאתַיִם, אוֹ שָׁוֶה מָאתַיִם בְּמָנֶה, מִכְרָן קַיָּם: The halakha with regard to the assessment of the judges of the value of a piece of property in order to sell it is as follows: Where they decreased the price by one-sixth of its market value or added one-sixth to its market value, their sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Their sale is valid. If it were so that the sale is void, then what advantage is there to the power of the court over an ordinary person? However, if they made a document of inspection, i.e., an announcement that people should come to inspect the field and bid on the property, then even if they sold property worth one hundred dinars for two hundred dinars, or sold property worth two hundred dinars for one hundred dinars, their sale is valid, as the transaction was agreed upon and done publicly.

הַמְמָאֶנֶת, הַשְּׁנִיָּה, וְהָאַיְלוֹנִית, אֵין לָהֶם כְּתֻבָּה וְלֹא פֵרוֹת, וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת, וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת. וְאִם מִתְּחִלָּה נְשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם אַיְלוֹנִית, יֶשׁ לָהּ כְּתֻבָּה. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, יֶשׁ לָהֶן כְּתֻבָּה: An orphan girl who was married off by her mother or brother before reaching the age of majority may refuse to continue living with her husband upon reaching the age of majority, thereby retroactively annulling their marriage. In the case of one who refuses to continue living with her husband in this manner; and in the case of a woman who is a secondary forbidden relative by rabbinic law; and in the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit], who is incapable of bearing children, each of these women is not entitled to payment of a marriage contract; and they are not entitled to remuneration for the produce that the husband consumed; and they are not entitled to sustenance; and they are not entitled to their worn clothes that were brought in to the marriage as part of their dowry and became worn out during the marriage. If, from the start, he married her with the understanding that she is an ailonit, then she is entitled to payment of a marriage contract. In the case of a widow who married a High Priest; or a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza and later married a common priest; or a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] who married an Israelite; or a Gibeonite woman who married an Israelite; or a Jewish woman who married a Gibeonite or a mamzer, although each of these unions is prohibited by Torah law, the woman is still entitled to payment of a marriage contract.