Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth

Folio 98a

'in her virginity'¹  implies only one²  whose entire virginity is intact,³  irrespective of whether [previous intercourse with her was] of a natural or unnatural character.⁴  A certain woman⁵  once seized a silver cup on account of her kethubah⁶  and then claimed her maintenance. She appeared before Raba. He [thereupon] told the orphans, 'Proceed to provide for her maintenance; no one cares for the ruling of R. Simeon who laid down that we do not regard part of the amount as legally equal to the full amount.

Rabbah the son of Raba sent to R. Joseph [the following enquiry:] Is a woman⁷  who sells [of her deceased husband's estate] without [an authorization of] Beth din required to take an oath⁸  or is she not required to take an oath? — And [why, the other replied, do you not] enquire [as to whether] a public announcement⁹  [is required]? I have no need, the first retorted, to enquire concerning a public announcement because R. Zera has stated in the name of R. Nahman, 'If a widow assessed [her husband's estate] on her own behalf¹⁰  her act is invalid';¹¹  now, how [is this statement] to be understood? If a public announcement⁹  has been made [the difficulty arises,] why is her act invalid? Must we not consequently assume that there was no public announcement, and [since it was stated that] Only [if the assessment was made] 'on her own behalf' is 'her act invalid' it follows, does it not, [that if she made it] on behalf of another¹²  her act is valid?¹³  — [No,] a public announcement may in fact have been made but [her act is nevertheless invalid] because she can be told, 'Who [authorized] you to make the assessment?'¹⁴  as was the case with a certain man with whom corals¹⁵  belonging to orphans had been deposited and he proceeded to assess them on his own behalf for four hundred ZUZ, and when later its price rose to six hundred zuz, he appeared before R. Ammi, who said to him, 'Who [authorized] you to make the assessment?'¹⁶  And the law is that she¹⁷  is required to take an oath,¹⁸  but there is no need to make a public announcement.¹⁹ 

MISHNAH.IF A WIDOW WHOSE KETHUBAH WAS FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ SOLD²⁰  [A PLOT OF LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH²¹  FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ OR ONE THAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED ZUZ FOR ONE MANEH, HER KETHUBAH IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN THEREBY SETTLED.²²  IF HER KETHUBAH, HOWEVER, WAS FOR ONE MANEH, AND SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR' FOR ONE MANEH, HER SALE IS VOID. EVEN THOUGH SHE DECLARED, I WILL RETURN THE DENAR TO THE HEIRS' HER SALE IS VOID.²³  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: HER SALE²²  IS ALWAYS VALID²⁴  UNLESS THERE WAS²⁵  [SO MUCH LAND] THERE AS WOULD HAVE ENABLED HER²⁶  TO LEAVE²⁷  FROM A FIELD AN AREA OF NINE KAB,²⁸  AND FROM A GARDEN THAT OF HALF A KAB²⁹  OR, ACCORDING TO R. AKIBA, A QUARTER OF A KAB.²⁹  IF HER KETHUBAH WAS FOR FOUR HUNDRED ZUZ AND SHE SOLD [PLOTS OF LAND]³⁰  TO [THREE] PERSONS, TO EACH FOR ONE MANEH,³¹  AND TO A FOURTH³²  [SHE SOLD] WHAT WAS WORTH A MANE HAND A DENAR FOR ONE MANEH,³³  [THE SALE] TO THE LAST PERSON IS VOID BUT [THE SALES] OF ALL THE OTHERS ARE VALID.

GEMARA. Wherein does [the sale of a plot of land] THAT WAS WORTH TWO HUNDRED ZUZ FOR ONE MANEH differ [from the previous case? Is it] because she³⁴  might be told, 'You yourself have caused the loss'? [But, then, why should she not, where she SOLD A PLOT OF LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH FOR TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, also [be entitled to] say, 'It is I who have made the profit'?³⁵  — R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha:

1. Which includes one who is adolescent (Lev. XXI, 13).
2. Being a na'arah (v. Glos.).
3. Is permitted to be married by a High priest.
4. Yeb. 595. She is forbidden even if it was unnatural. Her virginity must he completely intact. Cf. supra note 11. Thus it has been shewn that the dispute between R. Simeon and the Rabbis (sc. R. Meir) has no bearing on the legal relationship between the part and the whole (cf. supra note 4). but on the method of interpreting certain Scriptural texts.
5. A widow.
6. The amount of which exceeded the value of the cup.
7. A widow.
8. That she did not collect more than her due.
9. Of the intended sale of the estate, as is the procedure where the sale is ordered by the court.
10. And seized it for her kethubah.
11. Lit., 'she did nothing'; the orphans may at any time reclaim that land and refund her the amount of her kethubah.
12. I.e., she sold the estate for her kethubah to a third party.
13. Lit., 'what she did she did'; which shews that no public announcement is required in the case of the sale under discussion.
14. As neither the court nor the orphans had given her any such authorization the estate must remain in the legal possession of the orphans. If, however, she sells to other people her act is valid since she is fully authorized to do so.
15. [H] (so Rashi). Cur. edd., [H] fodder'. MS.M. [H] 'garment'.
16. Cf. supra n. 8 mutatis mutandis.
17. A woman in the circumstances spoken of 10 Rabbah's enquiry supra.
18. V. supra note 2.
19. Cf. n. 3. [This implies that the assessment must nevertheless be made in the presence of an expert valuer (Trani)].
20. From her deceased husband's estate.
21. V. Glos.
22. Because she is to blame for the loss incurred.
23. Since she had no right to sell a part of the land (representing the value of the denar) her entire sale is deemed to have been made in error and is. therefore, void.
24. Even if the land she sold was worth more than the amount of her kethubah; because she can refund the balance to the orphans.
25. Lit., 'shall be'.
26. If she had not sold for more than her due. Lit., 'sufficient', 'as much as'.
27. Exclusive or inclusive of the land she sold over and above the area representing the value of the amount that was due to her.
28. Sc. in which such a quantity of seed could be sown. An area of that size represents the minimum of land that can be profitably cultivated. By leaving a lesser area the woman is causing undue loss to the orphans. and her sale must consequently be annulled. If the lesser area, however, would have remained even if she had sold what was her due, her sale is valid since the orphans could not in any case have made profitable use of the residue.
29. The minimum area that can be profitably laid out as a garden. Cf. supra n. 9 mutatis mutandis.
30. From her deceased husband's estate.
31. Lit., 'to this for a maneh and to this for a maneh'.
32. Lit., 'last'.
33. So that in the last sale she disposed of more than her due.
34. The widow who effected the sale.
35. And so have a claim to another maneh.

Rabbi¹  has taught here²  that all [profits³  belong] to the owner of the money.⁴  As it was taught,⁵  'If one unit⁶  was added to [the purchases made by an agent] all [the profit belongs] to the agent'; so R. Judah, but R. Jose ruled, '[The profit] is to be divided',⁷  [and, in reply to the objection,] But, surely, it was taught that R. Jose ruled, All [profit belongs] to the owner of the money! Rami b. Hama replied: This is no difficulty for the former refers to an object that has a fixed value⁸  while the latter refers to one that has no fixed⁹  value.¹⁰

R. Papa stated: The law is that¹¹  [the profit made by the agent on] an object that had a fixed value must be divided,⁷  but if on an object that had no fixed value all [profit belongs] to the owner of the money. What does he¹²  teach us?¹³  — That the reply that was given¹⁴  is the proper one.¹⁵

The question was raised: What [is the law where a man] said to his agent,¹⁶  'Sell for me a lethek'¹⁷  and the latter presumed¹⁸  to sell a kor.¹⁹  [Is the agent deemed to be merely] adding to the owner's instructions and [the buyer, therefore,] acquires possession of a lethek, at all events, or is he rather transgressing his instructions and [the buyer, therefore,] acquires no possession of a lethek either? — Said R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod²⁰  in the name of Rabina, Come and hear: If a householder said to his agent, 'Serve a piece [of meat]²¹  to the guests', and the latter said to them, 'Take two',²²  and they took three,²²  all of them are guilty²³  of trespass.²⁴  Now if you agree [that the agent]²⁵  was merely adding to the host's instruction one can well understand the reason why the householder is guilty of trespass. If you should maintain, however, [that the agent]²⁵  was transgressing his instruction [the objection could well be advanced:] Why should the householder be guilty of trespass? Have we not In fact learned: If an agent performed his mission it is the householder who is guilty of trespass but if he did not perform his mission it is the agent who is guilty of trespass?²⁶  — Here we may be dealing with a case where the agent said to the guests, 'Take one at the desire²⁷  of the householder²⁸  and one at my own request's²⁷  and they took three.

Come and hear: IF HER KETHUBAH, HOWEVER, WAS FOR A MANEH, AND SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR FOR A MANEH, HER SALE IS VOID. Does²⁹  not [this mean] that SHE SOLD [LAND THAT WAS] WORTH A MANEH AND A DENAR FOR A MANEH and a denar,³⁰  and that by²⁹  [the expression,] 'FOR A MANEH' the maneh that was due to her [is meant], and by²⁹  EVEN³¹  [one is to understand] EVEN THOUGH SHE DECLARED, I WILL RETURN THE DENAR TO THE HEIRS [by repurchasing for them] land of the value of a denar'? And was it not nevertheless stated, HER SALE IS VOID?³²  — No,³³  retorted R. Huna the son of R. Nathan, [this is a case] where [she sold] at the lower price.³⁴

1. R. Judah I, the Patriarch, compiler of the Mishnah c. 200 C.E.
2. In our Mishnah.
3. Made by an agent.
4. Since the widow was merely acting as the agent of the orphans, who are the owners, she cannot lay any claim to the profit she made.
5. V. infra, o. 12.
6. Lit., 'one more'.
7. Between agent and owner; v. Tosef. Dem, VIII.
8. And, since it is not certain in whose favour the additional unit was given away by the seller, its value must be equally divided between the agent and the owner of the money.
9. So that the additional unit cannot be regarded as a gift, but as a part of the purchase, payment for which was made with the money of the owner. Hence it is the latter only who is entitled to the added unit.
10. Thus it has been shewn that our Mishnah which deals with land (something that has no fixed value) and assigns the profits to the original owner (the orphans) is in agreement with the view of R. Jose.
11. [H] so cur. edd. and R. Han. MS.M. and a reading approved by Tosaf. (s.v. [H]) is [H] 'therefore'.
12. R. Papa.
13. By his statement which is only a repetition of what has just been laid down. This question seems to imply the reading of [H] (v. supra n. 13) rather than that of [H], (Tosaf.).
14. By Rami b. Hama.
15. Lit., 'that which we replied is a reply'.
16. Lit., 'to him'.
17. Sc. a plot of land in which a lethek ( half a kor) of grain may be sown.
18. Lit., 'and went'.
19. V. Glos.
20. A town situated on the east of Nehardea.
21. Which was subsequently found to have been consecrated food.
22. Each.
23. The host in respect of the first, the agent in respect of the second and the guests 10 respect of the third.
24. Me'il. 20a.
25. Like the agent spoken of in the enquiry.
26. Hag. 10b, Kid. 42b, Ned. 54a, Me'ii. 205. Consequently it must be concluded, must it not. that an agent in the circumstances mentioned is deemed to have added to, and not transgressed, his instructions?
27. Lit., 'knowledge'.
28. Thus performing his mission.
29. Lit., 'what'.
30. Sc. for its full price, so that no error was involved.
31. Which, in view of the fact that the denar obviously belongs to the orphans, is apparently meaningless.
32. As the woman is in a position similar to that of the agent spoken of in the enquiry it follows that as her sale is void so is that of the agent.
33. I.e., our Mishnah is not to be understood as suggested.
34. Sc. for one maneh only; the error 10 the sale, not the excess of the land sold, being the reason for the invalidity of the sale. [Read with MS.M. and Tosaf. [H] instead of [H] in cur. edd.].