Ketubot 109 – The girls should be supported

The second of the two judges promulgating decrees was Admon. However, some of his seven decrees were hotly contested. Here is one example.

By Torah law, when a man dies, only his sons get a portion of his inheritance, not his daughters. The Sages changed this in favor of the daughters: if there is enough money in the estate, the daughters are supported until they marry or grow up, and the sons divide the rest of the inheritance; but if there is not enough money, then the daughters are supported from whatever there is, and the sons can go begging.

Admon argued: just because they are males, they should lose all? Instead, divide the estate equally! – but the Sages still did not agree, and their logic was that the boys could look for sustenance easier than the girls.

Another example is if the bride's father promised money to his son-in-law as dowry but defaulted, the son-in-law can insist on his rights and say that he is not marrying until the promise is paid – or until the bride's hair turns white.

Admon suggested that the bride should argue thus: “I could understand this if it was I who promised the money, but it is my father, so what am I to do?” She can then force the groom to either marry her or write her a Get releasing her. This reasoning of Admon was accepted.

Art: The young bride by John Phillip

Ketubot 108 – One who puts his money on the horns of a gazelle

A husband who goes overseas still must provide for his wife. As we learned, his possessions may even be sold for this purpose.

Imagine that someone else, the husband's benefactor, decided to provide for the wife's upkeep. Even though he thus saves the husband from potential losses, the husband, when he returns, has no obligation to repay his benefactor. In general, if one pays up his fellow's debt, that fellow does not have to compensate for this – this is the opinion of Chanan, one of the two judges we met before.

Other Sages (who were sons of High Priests) disagree and require the husband to reimburse the benefactor. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai concurs with Chanan and expresses it thus: "The benefactor is like one who puts his money on the horns of a gazelle" (where he is likely to never see it again).

Art: Deer In A Landscape by Johannes Christian Deiker

Ketubot 107 – The husband went on a trip, leaving his wife penniless

Imagine that the husband went on a trip, leaving his wife penniless - or, at least, this is what she claims. In this case, she comes to court, asking the court to start selling the husband's property to provide her support.

One of the two judges we mentioned above as promulgating beneficial decrees, by the name of Chanan,  ruled that she would have to swear afterward when she comes to collect her Ketubah payment. However, right now, she does not have to swear about her claim and is provided with sustenance. Others disagreed, but Chanan's law was accepted.

But in general, do we really provide sustenance by selling the estate? – If he left not on good terms, we can believe he left her nothing. But typically, does a man leave his house empty? – For these reasons, Shmuel ruled that the court does not give her sustenance. What about the ruling of Chanan? Even those who disagreed with Chanan only argued about an oath but not sustenance. Can we assume that Shmuel is wrong? – No, Shmuel will tell you that Chanan was talking about a specific case where there is a rumor that the husband died. Then we can give her sustenance, but not in the usual case.

Rav disagreed with Shmuel: there is no reason to suspect the wife, and sustenance is given to her, even including money for fragrances.

Art: In the estate by Boris Kustodiev

Ketubot 106 – Influence of the judge

A man brought a basket of cheap small fish to Rav Anan, a righteous man. Rav Anan, who was a judge, said, "I am not taking your fish, and I am disqualified from judging your case." The man said, "Giving a present to a righteous man is like bringing the best sacrifice in the Temple; please accept." Rav Anan, who has disqualified himself from the case, accepted the gift. Still, this is what happened.

Rav Anan sent the man to Rav Nachman's court, saying that he, Rav Anan, was disqualified from judging it. Rav Nachman assumed that the reason was that Ran Anan was a relative of the man and treated the man with honor. Seeing this, the man's opponent was confused in his arguments and lost the case.

Consequently, the Prophet Elijah, who used to visit Rav Anan every day, stopped coming. Rav Anan fasted and prayed, and Elijah came back, but now he had a scary appearance, and Rav Anan had to study with Elijah while hidden in a box. The first set of teachings, before the incident, is called "The Great Book of Elijah," whereas the second set, after the incident, is called "The Small Book of Elijah," and the above is the reason.

Art: The Golden Fish by Paul Klee

Ketubot 105 – Judges' salaries

There were two prominent judges in Jerusalem who were setting new laws. Actually, there were 394 courts in Jerusalem and the corresponding number of schools for adults and children, but we are talking only about judges promulgating new decrees.

Each of these judges had a court of twenty-three people, with a budget of ninety-nine maneh, to support the court members and their families. This amounted to 140 zuz per family per year, about 70% of the Ketubah amount on which a woman can live for a year. The court salaries came from the Temple treasury.

A judge named Karna would take payment from both litigants and then judge them. How is that possible, being that it amounts to a bribe? It is forbidden to take a bribe to judge incorrectly or even correctly, even if the judge may miss a chance to make a living!? – Karna was a well-known wine taster; by smelling the wine in the storage, he could advise if it should be sold immediately. Since he was losing these definite earnings, he was allowed to take payment for lost wages.

Shmuel was once crossing a bridge, and a man helped him. Shmuel immediately disqualified himself from being a judge in his case. Even praise is considered a bribe.

Rabbi Yishmael had a sharecropper who would bring produce due to Rabbi Yishmael every Friday. Once, he brought it on Thursday, saying he had a court case, so he brought the fruit earlier. Rabbi Yishmael disqualified himself from judging but went to listen to the proceedings and found himself constantly advancing the best arguments for the sharecropper in his mind. He said, “If I, who did not accept the bribe, and the produce was mine anyway, react so, then how much more false is the judgment of one who accepts bribe!”

Art: The Roman Wine Tasters by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema

Ketubot 92 – Mind twisting problems

The Talmud first discusses a problem where our previous ruling is used for comparison and then continues with a series of difficulties helpful in training the mind.

Let us say that debtor D owes $1,000 to his creditor C. Meanwhile, he owns two houses and sells them to buyer B, each for $500.

Now C wants his money, and D cannot pay, so C repossesses the first of the houses because real estate always guarantees the loan. B loses one of the houses he bought. Still, he wants to keep the second one, so he comes with $1,000 cash to C and proposes the following: if C wants to consider the first house, the one he just repossessed, as worth $1,000, then all is well; but if not, then this $1,000 should cover both houses, and C gets his money but loses the repossessed house.

Rami bar Chama wanted to say that this is precisely our previous rule: there, the orphans could not artificially inflate the worth of their mother's Ketubah,  so here too, the argument of considering the $500 house worth $1,000 does not stand. Without this, the second part of the proposal does not stand either, and the creditor can collect the second house. However, Rava reversed him: in the case of orphans, their suggestion would hurt the other group of children, but in our case, the creditor would always get his $1,000 loan back.

The following cases are abbreviated with mnemonics ("thousand" - that is our case, "hundred," "mitzvah of Ketubah"...). Such abbreviations, or "signs," contain clues to the mystical meaning of the subjects discussed.

Art: A thinking girl by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

Ketubot 91 – Two groups of children from two wives want the inheritance

When people were allowed to have more than one wife, fathers were reluctant to give large dowries to their daughters. They were apprehensive that when their daughter and her husband died, the inheritance would go to the children of the other wife. Therefore, the Sages established a rule that when the children claim the inheritance, they can ask for their late mother's Ketubah first. Then they would divide the remaining estate equally with the other wives' children. This is called "Ketubah of the (male) children."

Now imagine that it did happen: someone was married to two wives, they both died, then he died, and now the children all want the inheritance. This is where the above rule would kick in.

However, if there is not enough money to pay both the Ketubah of the first and the second wife, then there will be no leftover inheritance to divide: everything will be paid out as a Ketubah payment. Then the law of the inheritance from the Torah will be abrogated completely! - at least in this case. The Sages did not want this outcome, so they limited their rule to only cases where there was enough money to pay both Ketubahs and some. If there is not enough, then the rule above is not used; instead, everyone divides equally, which is the Torah law. Even if one group of the children wants to add money to the inheritance so that there is enough for the Ketubah and gain by getting their mother's larger Ketubah, they are not listened to.

Art: The Three Fishers Wives by Mrs. Henry Harewood Robinson

Ketubot 90 – Serial marriages and divorces

If a woman comes to court with two Get and two Ketubah documents, we assume that things were just as she describes: her husband married her, divorced, then re-married, and wrote a new Ketubah. She collects two payments.

However, if she produces two Ketubah documents but only one Get, we assume they are from one marriage, but he simply wrote another Ketubah for her. She collects only one. Finally, if she has two Get documents from him but only one Ketubah, he must have married (and divorced) her again, but anybody who re-marries his wife relies on the original Ketubah, so she again collects only one payment.

If one was married to two wives and died, and did not leave enough to pay both, then the Ketubah of the first way has priority over the Ketubah of the second. If the wives died before collecting their Ketubah payments, then the heirs of the first wife have priority over the heirs of the second one.

Art: Husband and Wife by Lorenzo Lotto

Ketubot 89 – How to collect divorce settlement

Imagine that a woman comes to court and presents a Get with which her husband divorced her. Then she wants him to pay the amount of the Ketubah. However, she does not have the Ketubah document, claiming it was lost. Normally, she should not be able to collect: anybody who wants to collect payment should present a loan document (in this case, it is the Ketubah). If it is lost, his money is lost.

However, since the Ketubah is the enactment of the court, it has the same power as though the document was actually present, so she can collect the money. Her former husband's claim that he paid the Ketubah is not believed. They should have torn the Get, given him her Ketubah or the payment receipt if he paid.

Consider the next case: the woman comes with the Ketubah but not with a Get. She wants the payment, but the husband claims that based on the rule above, she already collected her payment with her Get, claiming that the Ketubah was lost, and now she has put away the Get and produced the Ketubah. As for his receipt, he says he lost it. In this case, the husband wins because she does not have a Get and indeed could be collecting the money twice.

Rabban Gamliel adds that in the “time of danger,” people were afraid to keep their Get or Ketubah because the idolaters were persecuting the Jews for the performance of commandments. From this time on, a woman can collect her payment even without the Get because she may have destroyed it right after divorce.

Art: A group portrait of a husband, wife, and their child by Francis Alleyne

Ketubot 88 – Further arguments between the widow and the orphans

We learned earlier that when the widow comes to court to collect her Ketubah, she must take an oath that her husband, while alive, did not already pay the Ketubah to her. Incidentally, such oaths apply to orphans as well.

For example, say that the children of one family, after their father died, claim that the father of the other family (who also died) borrowed money from their father. The borrower's children say," "Our father told us that he indeed borrowed, but repaid" – the borrower's children must take an oath. This applies when their father says ""I paid"" for then the existence of the loan document does not prove anything.

However, if their father said," "I never borrowed"" then it works against him." "I never borrowed" means that he, of course, never repaid. Since the loan is uncontested and documented, no oath helps, and the orphans need to pay the debt. Furthermore, this is only when the children are adults, but minors are more protected from the claims of others.

Art: The Children by Henri-Jules-Jean Geoffroy

Ketubot 87 – Repairing trust

Earlier, we learned that a husband may sometimes impose an oath on his wife that she did not embezzle any of his property. We also mentioned that the possibility of this oath may lead to mistrust between the husband and the wife.

To prevent this, the husband may write for her a document stating that he "Will have no right to impose an oath or vow on her," and he then waives this right, although he can still impose the oath on her successor. He may give up the right to impose an oath on others.

The purpose of this oath was often to verify that the wife has not yet collected her Ketubah and that she is coming with a valid claim on the total amount. However, there was a strong incentive for the widow to take this oath, even if she had already collected some or all of the payment. She rationalized that she was entitled to extra compensation because of the care she would have to give to the orphans. The courts stopped accepting this oath, and widows had no way of collecting the Ketubah. To rectify that, the Sages gave the orphans the right to ask her to pronounce a vow (such as "The use of my husband's property is prohibited to me if I embezzled"), and then she gets the Ketubah.

The standard case where an oath would be present is where the husband claims that he paid his wife the Ketubah, and she says she received only a partial payment. The oath is in order because the one who pays usually remembers his payment well, but the one who receives it is not as careful about the details. The oath makes him better go through his recollections.

Art: The Orphan By Walter Langley

Ketubot 86 – Trust

An oath is a serious thing, and nobody can impose an oath on a person at will, not even a court. There must be a reason, such as a case where one admits to part of the claim and says, "It is true that I owe you money but less than what you say." Then the oath is in order.

However, if the husband appointed his wife a storekeeper or overseer for his business, he can ask for an oath at any time without a definite claim. This applies to any business partner of whom one may have a suspicion of embezzlement.

Rabbi Eliezer says that the husband can impose an oath in any case because it is unavoidable that the wife is an overseer over her spindle and dough. But the Sages say, "One cannot live with a snake in the same basket." If the husband suspects her so much, the wife may not be able to live with him.

Art:
Young Italian Woman from Papigno with Her Spindle by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

Ketubot 84 – The wife, the creditor and the children

When someone dies, his wife wants the Ketubah, his creditors – monies owed to them, and his children want the entire inheritance without paying his debts to anyone.

However, his wife can only take the land since this is what she relied on when getting married, and so too his creditors. The children automatically get all movables and all precious objects.

What happens to his things that are deposited with somebody, such as at a bank in a safe deposit box? Since the children have not yet taken possession of them, the court should give them to the underdog, the wife, or the creditor – this is the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva argues: you cannot base judgment on the feeling of mercy; the objects are given to the children or other inheritors to whom they rightfully belong. Even if the wife or creditor seizes the valuables, the court takes them away from her.

Today, when people don't own the land as commonly as they used to, the question is moot since the wife gets her Ketubah paid from all valuables the husband has left. Also, everybody agrees that there is a moral obligation on the children to pay their father's debts; it's just that they cannot be forced to do so.

Art: Group portrait of a gentleman and his wife and their four children by Gerbrand Ban

Ketubot 62 – Man's obligations to his wife

A husband has to provide his wife with food, clothing, and intimacy. If he quarrels with her and, in his rage, vows to never have relations with her, this vow does not take effect because he cannot take away her right. However, if he phrases his vow as “the pleasure of relations with you is prohibited to me,” he has created a prohibition for himself. Since now he is not a good husband, he should divorce her immediately and – because it is his fault – pay her the complete amount of her Ketubah.

If however, he limits his abstinence vow for a week or two, then we need to estimate when this situation becomes unbearable, and he has to give a divorce after that. How long is that? Beit Shammai says that it is two weeks. What is their logic? – In the Torah, there is a situation where they have to be apart for two weeks, that is, after the birth of a daughter, but more than this is too much. Beit Shammai compares the situation caused by the husband (vow) to the birth, also caused by the husband. However, Beit Hillel argues that “too long” is one week. They compare this to niddah, which lasts for one week and make an analogy between common occurrences – niddah and vows.

Practically, however, people with means and without worries should be intimate with their wives every day, laborers working in town – twice a week, donkey drivers who travel – once a week, and sailors, who are often absent for a long voyage – once every six months.

Art: Awaiting the Sailors Return by David Woodlock

Ketubot 61 – On the danger of some foods

We mentioned that if the wife brings enough maidservants or wealth as her dowry, she does not have to do any work but can “sit in an easy chair.” However, it is still advisable for her to prepare his wine, spread his bed, and assist with the washing of his hands, feet, and face because these are the signs of endearment – this was the advice of Rav Yitchak bar Chananiya.

He also added that the wife should not do these three things when she is a niddah – to not endear him too much. However, she can do them with a change or when not in front of him.

Rabbi Yitchak ben Chananiya also said that a waiter serving food must be allowed to try some of it, which refers to meat that gives off a pleasing odor and to pungent wine – or else the waiter will suffer from craving. Others say that this refers to all savory foods. There was a righteous man who would give the waiter from every course – and Elijah the Project would speak to him, while another righteous man only gave from one, and from the rest- after the meal, and with him, Elijah would not talk.

There was once a Roman who wanted to marry a particular woman, but she refused. He started eating pomegranates in front of her, and as she swallowed the saliva produced by her desire for it, she finally became all bloated. He made her promise that if he cured her, she would marry him. Then he brought more pomegranates and started eating these, saying, “All saliva that causes you discomfort, spit it out, spit it out!” She did so until something like a green palm leaf shot out of her, and she became healed.

Art: Pomegranates by John Singer Sargent

Ketubot 60 – Nursing a child

Abaye's sharecropper wanted to make an engagement with a woman whose husband had recently died and who was still nursing a child for the previous fifteen months. He came to Abaye to ask whether this was allowed. Abaye gave him many reasons why it was permitted.

Firstly, Rabbi Meir requires her to wait twenty-four months of nursing, but Rabbi Yehudah only needs fifteen months, and the law is always like Rabbi Yehudah against Rabbi Meir. Secondly, many other Sages also allow this. There were other reasons as well.

However, Rav Yosef, Abaye's teacher, corrected him: Abaye forgot another rule – when Rabbi Meir suggests a protective decree, the law always follows him. Abaye ran after his sharecropper for three miles, and some say – for one mile in the sand, but could not overtake him.

Abaye said: "This mistake happened to me because I should not have decided the law, even if it seemed obvious to me, in the vicinity of my teacher, for this is disrespectful."

And what is the reason for prohibiting such marriage? – If the woman becomes pregnant, the milk may become unfit for nursing, thus endangering the baby.

Art: Woman Nursing an Infant by Pieter De Hooch

Ketubot 59 – Things that a wife must do for her husband

Here is a list of a wife's obligations: grind grain into flour, bake the bread, do laundry, cook, nurse her child and work with wool. However, the more maidservants she brings into the marriage, the less she has to work, and with four maidservants, she just sits in an easy chair.

Rabbi Eliezer says that she always needs to work, at least with wool, for idleness leads to unchastity, while Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that idleness brings to insanity.

Rabbi Chiya disagrees and says that a wife is only for beauty, and she should not do any work that diminishes her beauty. He also taught in another place that a wife is only for adornments, and she should accept them from her husband, while it is his duty to give them to her.

Rabbi Chiya fulfilled his maxim in life: his wife gave him a hard time, and he would nevertheless buy any nice thing he could find and bring it wrapped up as a present. His theory was that it is enough for a wife to save the husband from sin by appearing beautiful, thus preventing him from looking at other women.

Art: Kitchen Still Life of Vegetables and Preparations for Baking a cake by E. K. Lautter

Ketubot 58 – What does the bride eat?

A Jewish girl married to a Kohen has the right to eat the Priest's portion of grain (terumah), which is otherwise forbidden to all non-Kohanim. What is her status while she is engaged? – Since the Kohen has acquired her as a bride, most likely by giving her a ring, she is considered "acquired by money" and is in the category of people who can eat the priestly portion.

However, since she may inadvertently give her cup of wine (for example) to her brothers and sisters – and they should not be allowed to drink it – the Sages decided that the bride does not eat the priestly portion (terumah). Others say that the reason is different: should the husband find some hidden defect, the marriage could be considered a "mistaken buy" and be annulled – and it will turn out that she ate terumah for no reason. Why is the reason important, if any way, she should not eat terumah? – In the case where she has a particular eating place, the first reason does not apply, but the second still does.

Typically, the husband supports his wife, and she gives him over her earnings. However, this is one of the decrees established for her benefit, and she can opt out of it. She can say, "I don't want your support and will keep my earnings." The Talmud then discusses the status of her earnings should the husband decide to consecrate them to the Temple.

Art: Wine glasses by John Singer Sargent

Ketubot 57 – Can one dispense with the Ketubah?

As we learned before, the Ketubah is a significant monetary obligation on behalf of the husband, which his wife will receive in the event of divorce or his death. Can one reduce the amount?

Rabbi Meir does not allow it: anybody who reduces the amount of the Ketubah violates a prohibition but achieves nothing – he still owes the full amount and even makes his cohabitations with his wife akin to promiscuous relationships. That is because his wife, seeing how he treats her like a woman with whom he wants to have few ties, does not trust him; their marital bond is as if severed.

However, Rabbi Yose permits this outright: the bride will understand the situation. Rabbi Yehudah suggests a compromise: he writes the Ketubah for the full amount, and she writes inside of it that she received a part. Usually, the protective decrees of Rabbi Meir, like this one, win: it is thus prohibited to reduce the Ketubah, and if it is lost, one cannot be intimate with his wife until the Ketubah is replaced.

Today, engagement and marriage happen as one step under the chuppah. Earlier, however, the bride was given twelve months to prepare her adornments for the wedding, and similarly, the husband was then given twelve months to prepare the wedding feast. In an extreme case, this would result in twenty-four months before the wedding. Afterward, even if the groom still delays the wedding, he is obligated to provide his bride's support.

Art: Portrait of a Bride by Johannes Cornelisz Verspronck

Ketubot 56 – How much really is the Ketubah payment?

Even though we said that the Ketubah payment is 200 zuz (or about $25,000), yet if the husband wants to increase it a thousand times, he can do so.

If she only received a ring and thus became bound to him, but they have not yet celebrated the marriage with the chuppah and have not started living together, she still already collects the total amount, with the added-on sum, in the event he divorces her or dies. However, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that in the event of this early dissolution of the marriage, she only gets the 200 zuz. The added amount was promised on the condition of her becoming a full-fledged wife.

What is the logic of the two opinions? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is very clear: a man does not want to give everything away before he has actually enjoyed the benefits of his bride becoming his wife. So we understand his intent. However, the other opinion also guesses his intent differently: why did he add that amount to the 200 zuz? – So that the bride will be suitably disposed toward him and agree to be his wife. This has already been achieved, and therefore he owes the total amount.

Even though Rav Nachman cursed any judge who rules like Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, in practice, the law indeed follows him, and a bride who is divorced before chuppah has a claim to only the standard amount of 200 zuz.

Art: The Bride by Albert Roelofs