Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nashim · 383 sections

10.2.4
הרי אנו מעלין על נכסי אבינו – we reckon their funds upon us to receive them as of a higher price in order that there will an additional Denar and they take the Ketubah of their mother.
10.3.1
היו שם נכסים בראוי – as for example, merchandise that is in the hands of others or a loan.
10.3.2
אינן כבמוחזק – they are not considered to be as if they are in possession in his hand and there is here and there is an excess of a Denar.
10.3.3
שאין להם אחריות – movable possessions.
10.3.4
שיש להם אחריות – land/property and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon and even at this time where we have the practice that movable property of the orphans is mortgaged to the creditor, the Ketubah of male issue is not practiced with movable possessions, but only with land/property.
10.4.1
של זו מנה ושל זו מאתים כו' – and the [Ketubot of the] three of them were signed on one day, for if it were on three [separate] days, the earliest one with a document comes first in collection, or if he didn’t leave anything other than movable possessions, for there is no law of precedence in movable possessions.
10.4.2
חולקות בשוה – for the power of them three of them similar with the hypothecary obligation of the Maneh and for all of them there is a Maneh.
10.4.3
היו שם מאתים – there isn’t for the person who has hypothecary obligation for a Maneh other than a Maneh, but the second Maneh there is no hypothecary obligation for a document of the owner of the Maneh.
10.4.4
של מנה נוטלת חמשים – In the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 93a), the question is raised that one-third of a Maneh was appropriate to be taken, and how does she take “fifty” which is one-half of a Maneh and it answers that the our Mishnah is speaking about when the owner of the two hundred said to the owner of the Maneh: I have no claim and I don’t have anything to do with the Maneh that is subjugated to you, and your portion will not be reduced on my account; therefore, she and the owner of the three hundred divide it, and because the portion of owner of the two hundred was not given to the owner of the portion of the Maneh as a gift, but rather she said to her that she would not quarrel with her, and because of her, her portion would not be reduced after the owner of the Maneh took fifty, there remained the merit of the owner of the “two hundred” as equal with the merit of the owner of the “three hundred,” and each of them take three golden Denarim, which are seventy five silver Denarim as every golden Denare is twenty-five silver Denarim.
10.4.5
היו שם שלש מאות – the first Maneh is subjugated to everyone and the second is to the owner of the “two hundred” and to the owner of the “three hundred,” and the third to the owner of the “three hundred” alone.
10.4.6
של מנה נוטלת חמשים ושל מאתים מנה – such as the example where the owner of three hundred said to the owner of the Maneh and to the owner of the “two hundred”: “I have no claim against you with the Maneh.” Therefore, the first Maneh the owner of the “two hundred” and the owner of the Maneh divide; it is found that the owner of the Maneh takes “fifty” and the second Maneh, the owners of the “two hundred” and the “three hundred”; it is found that the owner of “two hundred” takes a Maneh – fifty that was divided from the first Mnaeh with the owner of the Maneh and fifty from the second Maneh that she divided with the owner of the “three-hundred,” and third Maneh – the owner of the “three hundred” takes it all; it is found that she takes six golden Denars which a Maneh and one-half of the entire third Maneh that remains to her and one-half of the Maneh that she divided with the owner of the “two hundred.” And in the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 93a) reaches the conclusion that our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Natan and is not the Halakha, for Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] sai: I do not approve (literally, “see”) of Rabbi Natan’s views in these cases for [the three wives] take equal shares, for since all of his landed property is pledged to the Ketubah, all three of the Manehs are subjugated to the owner of the Maneh like the rest of her colleagues until she collects all of the Ketubah settlement; therefore, they divide it equally, and as such, the owner of the Maneh takes like the owner of the “two hundred and the “three hundred.” But the three who put their money into a single purse, this one of Maneh, and that one of “two hundred” and the other of “three hundred,” the profit in their monies that was grew in value, they take a Denar – for each one takes according to his funds. And specifically, when they grew in value as a result of the monies themselves, such as the coinage changed or they added to it or subtracted from it, then they divide the prophet or the loss according to the money, but if they purchased goods from the monies that they placed into the purse and they earned in value through the goods or lost, they do not divide the gain or the loss other than according to the number of partners, not according to the money and as such they take in the loss and/or in the gain – whomever placed in a small amount of money in the purse is like that individual that placed a lot of money, if they not make a condition from the beginning that they would divide it according to thej money. And such is how they judge in all the Jewish courts.
10.5.1
הראשונה קודמת לשניה – hers whose time of her Ketubah precedes that of the second, whose time is later, and similarly for all of them.
10.5.2
הראשונה נשבעת לשניה – if the second [wife] claims: “swear to me that you have not collected from my husband anything, for perhaps there will not remain for me from what I will collect my Ketubah and even the third [wife] will claim the same thing to the second [wife] and the fourth [wife] to the third, but the fourth collects without an oath as for example if there is no heir or another creditor who will make her take an oath.
10.5.3
בן ננס אומר כו' – the disagreement of the first Tanna and Ben Nanos is explained in the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 94a) as in the case where there is found one field from these field that the first three wives have collected which is not his, and it was known that he stole it, and eventually that its owners will come and take it and when the fourth [wife] comes to collect her Ketubah settlement from the fourth field, this one comes and says to her: “tomorrow the person who had been robbed will come and take his field; it is my desire that you will take an oath that you have not collected your Ketubah during the lifetime of the husband”; the First Tanna/teacher holds that the creditor of a later date who came early and collected, what he had collected, he did not collect; therefore, why should she take an oath if the person who was robbed will come and snatch it from this one. Let her return to the fourth [wife] and take from her what she collected, and hence the fourth [wife] would be a creditor of a later date. And Ben Nanos holds that a creditor o a later date who came early and collected what he collected, he has collected, and if she (i.e. the wife who came early) takes possession of this, the third [wife] cannot return to her, and therefore, takes an oath to her that she did not collect anything from the property of her husband and the Halakha is according to the First Tanna/teacher. Of itself, we learn that if she did not take hold of movable property, that she must take an oath, according to everyone’s opinion since there is no precedence as regards to movable property and what she collected, she collected.
10.6.1
וכתבה ראשונה ללוקח וכו' – as, for example when they purchased it from her hand, and in the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 95a) it raises the question: Could she not say: “I merely wished to oblige my husband (i.e., her purchase was not to be taken seriously)? And it responds, as for example, that the husband sold this field [of his wife] to another man prior to that one, and the wife did not want to endorse it for this one, but she endorsed it for the other, and if it is that it is acting [in a manner that is] obliging to her husband, she would have endorsed the first [sale].
10.6.2
פשרה – adjustment/compromise; not everything to this one, nor everything to that one, and the language of “tepid,” – not hot nor cold.
10.6.3
וכן ב"ח – and two mortgaged properties. Reuven has a claim against Shimon for a Maneh, and he has two fields and sold them to two people – to this one for fifty and to that one for fifty, and the creditor wrote to the second purchaser: “I have nothing against you.” The creditor takes from the hand of the first, for he is not able to say to say to him: “I left you a place that you can collect from him, for his debt corresponds to both, and the first purchaser removes from the hand of the second, and the creditor returns and removes even that from the first, and the second purchaser from the creditor and goes back in turn until they make a compromise.
10.6.4
וכן אשה בעלת חוב – she had her Ketubah on her husband, and he sold his two fields to two [different] people but neither of the two had other than up to her Ketubah, and she wrote to the second [purchaser]: “I have no claim against you and nothing to do with you.” The woman removes from the first purchaser and he removes it from the hand of the second [and the woman from the first] and the second from the woman and the first purchaser from the hand of the second and it goes back in turn [until they make a compromise].
11.1.1
אלה ניזונת מנכסי יתומין – whether land or movables, for it is the condition of the Jewish marriage contract: “And you will dwell in my house and be supported from my property.”
11.1.2
ואין חייבין בקבורתה – for the husband is liable in her burial in place of her inheritance, and now those who inherit her collect her Ketubah settlement from those who inherit the husband – and they would bury her and of itself, we learn that if she died, and did not take an oath about her Ketubah, for now, her heirs do not collect her Ketubah, and it is placed upon the husband’s heirs to bury her.
11.2.1
בין מן האירוסין – for she has no support/food and sells [it] for her Ketubah settlement.
11.2.2
בין מן הנשואין – which she sells for support/food.
11.2.3
מוכרת שלא בבית דין – meaning to say, that is not in a Jewish court of specialists/experts, but nonetheless, she needs to sell in the presence of three who would be expert in estimation of the land.
11.2.4
רבי שמעון אומר מן הנשואין – that she sells for food, selling not before a Jewish court for it is impossible to her to be sitting [and suffering] until she they would obligate for her a Jewish court. But from the betrothal, where here sale is not for anything other than the Ketubah, she does not sell it other than in a Jewish court, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
11.3.1
מכרה כתובתה – a Maneh [out of] two hundred,
11.3.2
she cannot sell the rest. The supplement [is not sold] other than in a Jewish court, and our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Shimon who said: she does not sell when not in a Jewish court other than for food, and this, since she has collected part of her Ketubah settlement, she lacks food/support.
11.3.3
וחכמים אומרים מוכרת – for the Ketubah even for periods of time and even though this is the case, she sells it in the meanwhile for food/support that she has not lost her support/food and even though she collected part of her Ketubah settlement.
11.3.4
וכותבת – in the document of sale that I sold them for food/support.
11.3.5
וגרושה לא תמכור – her Ketubah other than before a Jewish court. What is the reason? The Rabbis stated that a widow whether from betrothal or from marriage sells not in the presence of a Jewish court because no man wants that his wife should be despised in a Jewish court and this is the case since she is a divorcee and he doesn’t care, but the Halakha is according to the Sages that a woman sells whether for her Ketubah settlement or for food/support not in the presence of the Jewish court of specialists and even if she had received part of her Ketubah settlement, she sells for food/support until she receives all of her Ketubah settlement and when she sells, whether for her Ketubah or for food/support, she needs an oath and does not require announcement.
11.4.1
שוה מאתים במנה נתקבלה כתובתה – for we tell her “you have suffered loss/ruin and that which is worth a Maneh [that was sold] for two hundred, even though it gained in value, one cannot say: “I will make a profit for a person who sends his agent to the market to do business and he purchased it cheaply, everything goes to the owner of the money and we don’t hear from here other than regarding a thing that has no limit such as the case of land whose manner is for it to be sold through mere sight/estimate – this one for less and that one for more, but a thing that has a limit and the agent purchased it for less, the law is not made clear to us from this and becomes fit for something remarkable for they argued about it and the conclusion is according to [what] appears to us that the agent and the person sending the agent are arguing about.
11.4.2
מכרה בטל – that same Denar, she does not have permission to sell, it is found that the entire sale is in error, for it took place at one time.
11.4.3
לעולם מכרה קיים – and she should return the Denar to the inheritors for what loss did she cause them? Until it would be a fraudulent representation in order that if it were no overreaching, the field would remain worth nine Kabim which is the measure of the field,
11.4.4
and in the garden within one-half of Kab which is the measure of a garden. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.
11.5.1
אגרת בקורת – an announcement that through this announcement, people inspect her and in this, the First Tanna/teacher agrees with Rabban Gamaliel and the Halakha is according to the First Tanna.
11.6.1
השנייה – incest of second degree which is from the enactments of the Soferim.
11.6.2
אין להם כתובה – [worth] a Maneh or two hundred. She refuses because she leaves on her own. The second decree [incest] is fined by the Rabbis because she persuades him to marry her and she doesn’t lose anything in her marriage, for she is not made ritually invalid through them and her offspring is ritually valid. A sterile woman/incapable of conception [does not receive her Ketubah] because it is a business transaction in error.
11.6.3
ולא פירות – the usufruct that the husband consumed we don’t remove from him.
11.6.4
ולא מזונות – an example such as if she borrowed and consumed while still under him (i.e., his domain) and afterwards, refused [to be married to him], the husband is not liable for her support while she is under him (i.e., in his domain), and the second degree [incest] and the woman incapable of conception/sterile have no support while they are under him and all the more so, if they borrowed and consumed for the husband is not obligated to pay.
11.6.5
ולא בלאות – that were lost or worn out completely whether from the usufruct (the wife’s estate of which the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration) or from the wife’s estate held by her husband, which in case of her death or divorce, he must restore in specie, being responsible with all his landed property for loss or deterioration (i.e. mort-main), the woman who refuses to marry her husband cannot remove from them from the hand of her husband but the worn-out garments (or the woman’s right to claim compensation for the wear or ruin of the things which she brought along as her property, whether she refuses him in marriage or is second-degree of incest or is a sterile woman, and even if she ran about as a prostitute, she does not lose her worn-out garments/claim for compensation for the wear or ruin of things which she brought along as her property, but the woman charged with second-degree incest has no claim for compensation for the wear or ruin of things which she brought along as her property of the usufruct, but she does have the compensation for wear or ruin of things of the mort-main.
12.1.1
הנושא את האשה ופסקה עמו – in the document and symbolic form of making an agreement binding, or he (i.e., the husband) aid to witnesses: “you are my witnesses that I obligate myself to support her (i.e., my wife-to-be’s) daughter that she has from another man.
12.1.2
לכשתבא אצלי – meaning to say, if I would sustain her mother, I would feed her.
12.1.3
מוליך לה מזונותיה למקום שאמה שם – for we hold that a daughter is with her mother whether as an adult or as a child – all the time that the mother wants. And the son, until six years with his mother, and the father is obligated to provide support and he is with his mother, if the mother wants.
12.2.1
בנותיהן ניזונות מנכסים בני חורין – but not mortgaged [properties] for we do not release for the support of the wife and the daughters from mortgaged properties because of the welfare of the world, for those who bought the property do not know how much food provisions will cost so that they would beware to leave them a place from which to collect.
12.2.2
והיא ניזונת – that same daughter.
12.2.3
שהיא כבעלת חוב – for she has upon them a document of support (i.e., food).
12.2.4
כל זמן שאת עמי – and not if I die or if you die or I will divorce you.
12.3.1
ונותנין לה מדור – and similarly, utensils, male servants and maid servants that she would use them during the lifetime of her husband and if the house fell, they don’t have to build her another house, for it is taught in the Mishnah: “you will dwell in my house,” and even if she wanted to build it from her from her own funds, we don’t listen do her.
12.3.2
אם את אצלנו יש ליך מזונות – that the blessing of the house is plentiful.
12.4.1
כל זמן שהיא בבית אביה – and the heirs gave to support there.
12.4.2
גובה כתובתה – when she desires.
12.4.3
שתעשה טובה – from the property of orphans, she gives bread and salt to her neighbors up to [the value of] her Ketubah settlement.
12.4.4
וחכמים אומרים – they did not mention twenty five years to cause her to lose her Ketubah settlement because of the good that she will do from the property of the orphans, but rather, concerning the issue of renunciation, it was mentioned by them that since she was silent and had not claimed [her Ketubah settlement] all these years, she renounced [it], therefore, all the time that she is in the house of her husband, her silence is renunciation since because they honor her, she is ashamed to claim her Ketubah settlement; but in her father’s house, since she had been silent for twenty-five years, it is a renunciation.
12.4.5
מתה יורשיה מזכירין כתובתה – meaning to say, they need to claim her Ketubah settlement within twenty-five years and especially when she took an oath on her Ketubah prior to her passing. This is the case where her heirs are able to claim her Ketubah settlement, but if she had not taken an oath regarding her Ketubah, her heirs do not inherit from her Ketubah anything, and no one bequeaths an oath to his children.
13.1.1
שני דייני גזילות (note that the opening words of this comment are different from what is written in the Mishnah, and seem to reflect a different manuscript in the hands of Rabbi Obadiah of Bertinoro) – they were making decrees regarding thieves and imposing fines upon them.
13.1.2
שני דברים – that the Sages do not agree with him.
13.1.3
תשבע בסוף – when they heard regarding him that he (i.e., the husband) had died, and she (i.e., the wife, now the widow) comes to collect her Ketubah, she takes an oath that she has not held back any property of her husband at all (after her husband’s death).
13.1.4
ולא תשבע בתחלה – at the time of collection of support. But Maimonides explained that she should take an oath at the end when her husband would come and contradict her and say, “I left you support,” she should take an oath claiming that he had not left her anything.
13.1.5
רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אומר – and the Halakha is according to him, and especially after three months from the husband departing, they provide/assign support to the wife if she claimed support, but not prior to this time, for it is a legal presumption that a man does not leave his house empty and leaves.
13.2.1
אבד את מעותיו – that he said, “I did not say to you, lend me and I will pay it back,” but if he lent the woman money for her support/maintenance on the condition that she should pay him, he makes a claim [against her] and she makes a claim the husband and he pays. But if the husband claims, “I left her support,” and she states, “he did not leave me, and wants to remove [money] from him, the husband takes an oath of inducement (an oath instituted by the Sages where the defendant completely denies a claim, based upon the tradition of Rav Nahman – to clear himself of suspicion), and he is exempted, and the moneys would be liability upon her when she becomes a widow or a divorcee, and in this Mishnah also, the Halakha is according to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.
13.3.1
בנכסים מועטים – that they lack support for twelve months for males and females. And Maimonides explained that everyone who lack the means to support the boys and girls until the girls become adults is called meager resources/a small amount of property.
13.3.2
בשביל שאני זכר הפסדתי – meaning to say, with the fact that I am a male and designated/predestined to inherit with a great deal of property, I have lost out when there is a small amount of property/meager resources. But the Halakha is not according to Admon.
13.4.1
והודה בקנקנים – empty [jars] without oil as for example where his fellow made a claim against him for ten pitchers of oil that I have that are with you.
13.4.2
Admon states that there is an implication in this claim [for] oil and pitchers, and when he admitted to him about the empty pitchers, that is a partial admission of guilt and he requires taking an oath.
13.4.3
But the Sages state that there is no implication in this claim other than the oil alone which is the measure of ten pitchers, and when he admitted to him regarding the empty pitchers, what he claimed against him was not admitted to him, and what he admitted to him was not claimed against him, and there is no partial admission from the kind of a claim and he is not liable to take an oath, but the Halakha is according to Admon.
13.5.1
ופשט את הרגל – it is the language of contempt/disgrace, meaning to say, “take the plaster and dust that is under my feet. Another explanation: “Suspend me by my feet on the tree, for I lack what I can give to you” (i.e., he defaulted). And Maimonides explained, “and he shows him the foot”/ופשט את הרגל (i.e., refuses to give it to him), that he walked on the road from afar.
13.5.2
עד שתלבין ראשה – until she gets old and we don’t force him neither to marry [her] or to set her free.
13.6.1
העורר על השדה וכו' – Reuven protests concerning the field that is in the hand of Shimon, and says to him: “Levi who sold it to you stole it from me, and he is inscribed on the bill of sale that Levi wrote to Shimon who sold it to him.
13.6.2
אדמון אומר יכול הוא שיאמר – just as I did not protest at the time when you purchased this field from Levi and I signed/inscribed as a witness in the midst of the document because Levi is a strong man and difficult to remove something from his hand, it was pleasant for me that it should be in your hand than that I would [try] to remove it from you in court.
13.6.3
אבד את זכותו – for since and he signed, he admitted that he had no business with this, but the Halakha is not like Admon, and especially when he signed it as a witness, this is what Admon and the Sages were arguing about, but if he is signed as a judge to uphold the document, everyone agrees that he did not lose his right because he would be able to say: “I did not know what was written in the document for the judge who signs as the legal endorsement of a note, stating that it has been produced in court and found valid – to uphold the document and it is not necessary that he knew what was written in the document other than that he should recognize the signatures alone.
13.7.1
ואבדה דרך שדהו – that the owners of the field who took possession of it that was in his narrow path marking the boundary between fields.
13.7.2
ילך לו בקצרה – by force against their will, he should take for himself the path to his field, but he should choose for himself the shortest path so that he would not have to take a lot. And at the time when people surround it from the four directions Admon agrees with the Sages that each person can say, “I brought proof that your path is [where the money was] collected and taken. But if one person surrounded it from the four directions, the Sages agree that whatever side you take, his path is with him. They did not dispute other than when one person surrounded it when he came under the power of four people. Admon states that one can say to him, whatever side you take, my path is with you. But the Sages say that one can say to him: How? If you were silent, you were silent, but if not, return the document to his master, and you will not be able to talk about the law with/to sue him. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
13.8.1
והלה הוציא שמכר לו את השדה – the borrower brought out against him the latter bill of sale to the loan document and stats that your document is forged, or it is paid off , for if I had been liable to you, you would not have sold me the field that was yours to collect your lien.
13.8.2
זה היה פקח שמכר לו את השדה – because this one abandoned his movable property, and he did not have from where he could he could mortgage on his lien and now he takes the property. Bu in a place where the purchaser gives Zuzim/money and afterwards the writing of a bill/document of sale, everyone does not disagree that the seller should have tarried with his lien of the money that received and should not write for him the document and since he wrote it, it proves that he does not have a lien upon him, but they argue in a place where they wrote the document and afterwards the purchaser gives the Zuzim/money. Admon holds that he should have sent a declaration (especially a protest before witnesses against a forced or unduly influenced action): “I will not see you other than in order that I am able to mortgage it.” But the Sages state: the fact that he did not send a declaration because he was afraid lest the matter should become known and he would have been prevented from purchasing the field, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
13.9.1
וחכ"א זה גובה שטר חובו – And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
13.10.1
שלש ארצות לנשואין – if a person married a woman in one of these [lands], he cannot force her to go out after him one country/land to another.
13.10.2
כרך – larger than a city, and it is a place of markets, and from everywhere around it, [people] come there for business and for all things that are found in it.
13.10.3
אבל לא מעיר לעיר – for dwelling in the cities is hard for everyone resides there and crowds and the houses are close to one another and there is no air.
13.10.4
ולא מכרך לעיר – since in the [big] city, is found all kinds of things; in the town, all sorts of things are not found.
13.10.5
מפני שהנוה היפה בודק – the body and makes it sick. For the change in the period, even for [her] good is the beginning of stomach illness. But the Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel. But if a person from the land of the Galilee married a woman from the land of Judea or its opposite, we force her to go out with him, for it is on that account that he married her. And in every place, we remove [someone] from a city where most of it is idolatrous to a city where the majority is Israelite, but not from a city where its majority is Israelite to a city where its majority is idolatrous.
13.11.1
הכל מעלין – a person may force all the members of his household to make Aliyah with him to Jerusalem, and even if he purchased a Hebrew slave, that slave should go after him against his will, and even from a nice neighborhood to a bad neighborhood, and even from a city whose majority was Israelite to a city whose majority was idolatrous.
13.11.2
ואין הכל מוציאין – and we do not remove any individual [from Jerusalem].
13.11.3
אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים – If he (i.e., the husband) says to make Aliyah and she says that she doesn’t make Aliyah, she should be divorced without her Ketubah [monies], but if she states that [that she wants to make] Aliyah and he he says not to make Aliyah, he should divorce her and give her her Ketubah [monies].
13.11.4
קפוטקיא – this is Caphtor, and we call it Dima’t in Arabic. Its monies are large and weigh more than tose of the land of Israel. But because the Ketubah/marriage contract of a woman is from the words of the Scribes, they were lenient concerning it to pay her off with the least [amount of] money. But Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that the Ketubah is from the Torah, and because of this, he goes according to the stricter position in this. But, the Halakah is not according to him.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.