meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nashim/Mishnah Ketubot/English/Eighteen Treatises from the Mishnah.txt"}
text: Mishnah Ketubot
  משנה כתובות
  Eighteen Treatises from the Mishnah
  
  
  Mishnah Ketubot
  
  
  
  
  
  A virgin should get married on a Wednesday, and a widow on a Thursday. For the courts convene twice per week in the cities, on Monday and on Thursday, and if he has a claim about [her lack of] virginity, he can come to the court [as] early [as possible].
  [With regard to] a virgin [who is married], her <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband] is two hundred <i>dinar</i> [a specific unit of money]; And [for] a widow, it is a maneh [100 <i>dinar</i>]. A virgin [who is] a widow, or divorced, or has had <i>chalitza</i> [the ceremony performed to release a widow of a childless man from the obligation of levirite marriage] performed, after betrothal [the first stage of marriage, when the woman is considered a married woman but the couple may not yet live together], her <i>ketubah</i> is two hundred dinar, and they are subject to the claim of [her lack of] virginity. A proselyte, a captive, and a maidservant, who have been ransomed, converted, or freed at [an age of] less than three years and one day, their <i>ketubah</i> is two hundred dinar, and they are subject to the claim of [her lack of] virginity.
  In the case of an adult male who had sexual relations with a female minor, or a male minor who had sexual relations with an adult woman, or a <i>mukat ets</i> [a women who has lost her virginity in a non-sexual manner],  their <i>ketubah</i> is two hundred dinar. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say [with regard to] a <i>mukat ets</i>, that her <i>ketubah</i> is a <i>maneh</i>.
  A virgin [who is] a widow, divorced, or has had <i>chalitza</i>  performed after marriage, her <i>ketubah</i> is a  <i>maneh</i>, and they are not subject to the claim of [her lack of] virginity. A proselyte, a captive, and a maidservant, who have been ransomed, converted, or freed at [an age of] more than three years and one day, their <i>ketubah</i>is a  <i>maneh</i>, and they are not subject to the claim of [her lack of] virginity.
  He who eats [the betrothment meal] at his father-in-law's [home] in Judea without witnesses [present], cannot make a claim of her [lack] of virginity, because he enters into seclusion with [his wife]. With regard to both a widow, [the daughter] of an Israelite, as well as a widow, [the daughter] of a kohen, her <i>ketubah</i> is a  <i>maneh</i>. The court of kohanim would collect [as the <i>ketubah</i>] four hundred <i>zuz</i> [a specific amount of money] for a virgin, and the Sages did not protest.
  With regard to one who marries a woman, and does not find [physical signs of] her virginity. She says, "After you betrothed me I was raped and 'your field has been flooded' [i.e., it is your loss]‎". And the other one says, "Not so, rather, before I betrothed you [you lost your virginity], and [consequently] 'my purchase was made  in error'". Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, "She is believed;"  Rabbi Yehoshua says, "We do not live by [the words of] her mouth. Rather, she is presumed to have had relations before she became betrothed and that she deceived him, until she brings proof for her words."
  If she says, "I am a <i>mukat ets</i>," and he says, "Not so, rather you have been penetrated by a man," Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, "She is believed." Rabbi Yehoshua says, "We do not live by [the words of] her mouth. Rather, she is presumed to be a non-virgin through intercourse with a man, until she brings proof for her words."
  [In a case where people] saw her conversing [intimately] with a man in the market, [and] they said to her, "What is the nature [i.e., the lineage] of that man?" She says, "He is so and so, and he is a kohen [or of other legitimate descent]." Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, "She is believed." Rabbi Yehoshua says, "We do not live by [the words of] her mouth. Rather, she is presumed to have been penetrated by a <i>netin</i> [Gibeonites] or a <i>mamzer</i> [the offspring of certain prohibited relationships who may not marry into the general Jewish population], until she brings proof for her words."
  [In a case where] she was pregnant, and they said to her, "What is the nature of this  fetus [i.e., what is the lineage of the father]?" She replies, "By so and so, and he is a priest." Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, "She is believed." Rabbi Yehoshua says, "We do not live by [the words of] her mouth. Rather, she is presumed to have had sexual relations with a <i>netin</i> or a <i>mamzer</i> until she brings proof for her words."
  Rabbi Yossi said, "It [once] happened that a girl went down to draw water from the spring, and she was raped. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri ruled, 'If the majority of the townsmen [were of pure descent and qualified to] marry [into families of the] priesthood, this [girl] may marry into the priesthood.'
  
  
  
  A woman, who became widowed or divorced, [and] says, "You married me [when I was] a virgin," and [the husband] says, "No, rather, [when you were] a widow when I married you." If there are witnesses to prove that she went out [to be married] in a <i>henuma</i> [a carriage traditionally used to carry a virgin bride in a procession], and with her hair loosened, her <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband] is two hundred <i>dinar</i> [specific unit of money]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says, "The distribution of parched corn is also evidence [in her favor]."
  Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that if one says to his fellow, "This field belonged to your father, and I bought it from him," he is believed [and the field belongs to him], because the [same] mouth that prohibited [it to him by admitting that the field once belonged to someone else also] permitted [it].  But if there are witnesses that [the field]  belonged to the father, and he [the present holder] says, "I bought it from him," he is not believed.
  Witnesses who state, "This [signature] is [in] our handwriting; but, we were forced," or "we were minors," or "we were legally disqualified witnesses," they are believed. But if there are [other] witnesses [who testify] that it is their handwriting, or if [proof that it is] their handwriting comes out of another source, they are not believed.
  If this one says, "This is my handwriting, and this is the handwriting of my fellow;" and the other one [also] says, "This is my handwriting, and that is the handwriting of my fellow," they are believed. [However,] if this one [merely] says, "This is my handwriting," and the other one [also merely] says, "This is my handwriting" they need to join another [witness] to them. These are the words of Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi]. And the Sages say, "They do not need to join another [witness] to them; rather, a man is believed to say, "This is my handwriting."
  A woman, who said, "I was a married woman, and I am [now] divorced," is believed, because the [same] mouth which prohibited [her to other men by saying she was married, also] permitted [her to marry other men]. But if there are witnesses that she had been a married woman, even though she says, "I am divorced," she is not believed. If she says, "I was captured [by gentiles], but am undefiled," she is believed, because the [same] mouth which prohibited [her also] permitted [her]. But if there are witnesses that she was captured, and she says, "I am undefiled," she is not believed. And if  witnesses come after she was married [to a kohen], she need not get divorced.
  [With regard to] two women who were captured, this one says, "I was captured, but am undefiled," and the other one [also] says, "I was captured, but am undefiled," they are not believed. But when they testify on behalf of each other, they are believed.
  And similarly [is the case with] two men. This one says, "I am a kohen," and this one [also] says, "I am a kohen," neither of them is believed. But when they  testimony on behalf of each other, they are believed.
  Rabbi Yehudah says, "We do not promote [someone] to the kehuna [priesthood] based on the testimony of [only] one witness." Rabbi Eliezer says, "When [is this true]? In a case where there are protesters; but in a case where there are no protesters, we do promote to the kehuna based on the testimony of [only] one witness." Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the adjutant [kohen gadol (high priest)], "We do promote to the kehuna based on the testimony of one witness.'
  With regard to a woman who is imprisoned in the hands of gentiles: [If she is held] on account of money, she is [after her liberation] permitted to her husband. [But if she is held] under sentence of death, she is forbidden to her husband. With regard to a town that a militia conquered it, all the priestesses that are found within it become disqualified [to marry priests]. But if they have witnesses [to attest that they have not been defiled], even [though it be] a slave or a maidservant, they are believed; but no man is believed [to testify] about himself. [A kohen,] Rabbi Zechariah ben HaKatzav declared: "[By] this [holy] temple, [I swear my wife's] hand did not move from my hand from the time the gentiles entered into Jerusalem, and until they left." [The Sages] said to him: "No man is believed [to testify] about himself."
  These [men] are believed to testify, upon growing up, to what they saw while children. A man is believed to say, "This is the handwriting of my father;" "this is my teacher's handwriting;" [or] "this is my brother's handwriting;" [or] "I remember that a certain woman went out [to be married] in a <i>henuma</i> , and with her hair loosened,"  [or] "that so and so left the school to bathe and eat <i>teruma</i> [A portion of a crop given to a Kohen which becomes holy upon separation, and can only be consumed by Kohanim or their household], and that he partook with us on the threshing floor;" [or] "that this place is a <i>beit hapras</i> [a field in which a grave has been plowed over]‎"  [or] "until this [spot] did we go on Shabbat."  But a man is not believed to say, "So and so had a right of thoroughfare in this place;" [nor] "So and so had [rights to] a place for the escorting of mourners and for eulogies in this place."
  
  
  
  These are the ‏<i>na'arot</i> [pubescent girls distinguished from prepubescent girls and post-pubescent young women in a number of halakhic situations] who have [the right to recover] a fine. One who has intercourse with a <i>mamzeret</i> [the offspring of certain prohibited relationships who may not marry into the general Jewish population], or a <i>netina</i> [member of a caste of Temple servants, historically descended from the Gibeonites], or with a Samaritan. [Additionally,] one who has intercourse with a proselyte, a captive or a maidservant who were ransomed, converted, or freed at less than three years and one day [old]. [Further,] he who has intercourse with his sister, with his father's sister, with his mother's sister, with his wife's sister, with his brother's wife, with his father's brother's wife, or with a menstruating woman. All of these have [the right to recover] a fine; although these [prohibited sexual relations] are liable for <i>karet</i>, they are not [sentenced to] death by the court.
  And these do not have [the right to recover] a fine: He who is has intercourse with a proselyte, a captive, and a maidservant who were ransomed, converted, or freed at more than three years and one day [old]. Rabbi Yehuda says, "A captive who has been ransomed maintains her <i>kedushah</i> [status as a virgin], even if she is an adult." He who has intercourse with his daughter, with his daughter's daughter, with his son's daughter, with his wife's daughter, with [his wife's] son's daughter, or [his wife's] daughter's daughter, they do not have [the right to recover] a fine, because he is liable [to pay] with his life, and his death is in the hands of the court; and anyone who is liable [to pay] with his life does not [also] pay monetary [fines], as it is said, "If no mischief follow, he shall be punished by fine" (Exodus 21:22).
  [With regard to] a <i>na'arah</i> who was betrothed and [then] divorced, Rabbi Yossi HaGelili says, "She does not have [the right not recover] a fine;" and Rabbi Akiva says, "She does have [the right to recover] a fine, and her fine belongs to herself."
  One who seduces [a virgin] pays [for] three [things] , and one who rapes [her pays] four. The seducer pays [for her] disgrace, deterioration [in value], and the fine. A rapist adds [payment for the bodily] pain [he inflicted upon her]. What is [the difference] between the [punishment of the] seducer and [that of] the rapist? The rapist pays for the [bodily] pain; and the seducer does not pay for the [bodily] pain. The rapist pays immediately, and the seducer [only] when he sends her away [ i.e., refuses to marry her]. The rapist must drink out of his [chosen] vessel [i.e., he must marry his victim and may never divorce her], whereas the seducer may send her away.
  How [far does "he] must drink out of his [chosen] vessel" [extend]? Even if she is lame, even if she is blind, and even if she is afflicted with boils. [However,] if unchaste behavior is discovered in her, or she is not qualified to enter [by marriage] into the Jewish people, he is not permitted to maintain her [as a wife]; as it is said, "'Unto him she shall be a wife,' a wife who is fitting for him."
  [With regard to] an orphan, who was betrothed and [then] divorced, Rabbi Eliezer says, "The seducer is exempt [from penalty], but the rapist is liable."
  What [amount of compensation] is [due for her] disgrace? It is all [calculated] according to the [particular] one who disgraced and the one who was disgraced. [With regard to] the deterioration [in value], she is viewed as if she were a maidservant about to be sold; [and it is determined] what was her value [before the fact], and what is her value [after it]. [With regard to] the fine, it is equal for every person; as, whatever has a fixed amount from the Torah is equal for every person.
  Wherever there is [a right of] sale [maintained by the father], there is no fine; and whenever there is a fine, there is no sale [that can be effected by the father]. With regard to a prepubescent girl there is [the right of] sale [maintained by the father], but there is no [right to a] fine. A <i>na'arah</i>  has a [right to a] fine, but [the father] has no [right of] sale. [For] a <i>bogeret</i> [a girl past the age of twelve years and six months], there is no [right of] sale [maintained by the father], and she has no [right to a] fine.
  He who [voluntarily] declares, "I have seduced the daughter of so and so,"  pays for the disgrace and deterioration, based on his own [confession], but he pays no fine. He who [voluntarily] declares, "I have stolen, slaughtered, and sold [so and so's cattle]," must pay the principle value, based on his own [confession], but he does not pay the double payment, nor the four-fold, or the five-fold payment.  [He who says], "My ox killed so and so, or so and so's ox," must pay based on his own [confession]; [but should he say], "My ox killed so and so's slave," he does not pay based on his own [confession].  This is the rule: Whoever [is liable to] pay [a fine] in excess of that which he [actually] damaged does not pay based on his own [confession]. 
  
  
  
  With regard to a <i>na'arah</i> [pubescent girl distinguished from a prepubescent girl and post-pubescent young woman in a number of halakhic situations] who was seduced, the [compensation for] her disgrace and her deterioration, and her fine belong to her father; and likewise [the compensation] for [bodily] pain [for the <i>na'arah</i>] who was seized [and raped]. If she brought [him to] justice before the father died, [the payments] belong to the father. If the father died, they belong to the brothers. However, if she did not manage to bring [him to justice] before the father died, they are hers. If she brought [him to] justice before she reached the post-pubescent adult stage, [the damages] belong to the father. If the father died, they belong to her brothers. However, if she did not manage to bring [him to] justice until after she reached the post-pubescent adult stage, they are hers. Rabbi Shimon says, "If she did not manage to collect the money before the father's death, [the payments] are hers." [With regard to the wages earned from] her handiwork and [objects] she finds, even though she did not collect [the wages before her father died], if the father died, they belong to her brothers."
  If a man betroths his daughter [to another and the husband] divorces her, and [the father again] betroths her, and she becomes a widow, her <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband]  belongs to [her father]. If he marries her off and [the husband] divorces her, and [the father again] marries her off, and she becomes a widow, her <i>ketubah</i> is hers. Rabbi Yehudah says, "The first [<i>ketubah</i>] belongs to the father.[The Sages] said to him, "From when he married her off, her father has no claim on her."
  With regard to a female proselyte whose daughter converted along with her, and she committed adultery [as a betrothed <i>na'arah</i>] her [punishment] is strangulation. However, she does not have [to be brought out to] the door of her father's house, nor [does she have a right to] the 100 <i>selah</i> [a sum of money] [in a case where she was unjustly slandered]. If her conception was without [her mother in a state of] holiness [i.e., before she converted], but was born [when her mother was in a state of holiness, i.e., as a Jew] she is [condemned to] stoning. She does not have [to be brought out to] the door of her father's house, nor [does she have a right to] the 100 <i>selah</i>. [However,] if her conception and her birth were in [a state of] holiness, she is like a daughter of Israel in every respect. Whether she has a father but no entrance to her father's house, or a father's house but no father, she is [condemned to] stoning. [As,] the [law of bringing her out to] "The door of her father's house" is only said as a [positive] commandment [if it can be observed].
  The father has authority over his daughter with regard to betrothal, [whether it be effected] with money, with a contract, or with intercourse. He is [also] entitled to what she finds, to her earnings, and to the annulment of her vows. He [also] accepts her divorce document [on her behalf]. [However,] he does not enjoy the usufruct [of her inherited property] during her lifetime. If she gets married, the husband has the advantage over [the father], inasmuch as he does enjoy the usufruct [of her inherited property] during her lifetime. But he is obligated to [provide] her food, her ransom [in case of her being in captivity], and her burial. Rabbi Yehudah says, "Even the poorest man in Israel should not have fewer than two mourning flutes, and one lamenting woman [at the funeral of his wife]."
  [A female] is always under the authority of her father until she is enters into the authority of her husband through marriage.  If the father transferred her to the emissaries of the husband, she is under the authority of the husband. If the father went with the husband's emissaries, or if the father's emissaries went with the husband's emissaries, she is [still] under the father's authority. If the father's emissaries transferred her to the husband's emissaries, she is under the authority of her husband.
  The father is not obligated to provide food for his daughter; [as] this textual interpretation [of the following clause in the <i>ketubah</i>] was offered by Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah before the Sages in Kerem BeYavneh: "'The sons will inherit, and the daughters will be provided with food.' Just as the sons do not inherit until after the father's death, so too the daughters are not provided with food until after the father's death."
  If [the husband] has not signed a <i>ketubah</i> for her,  a virgin [bride] receives 200 <i>dinar</i> [a specific unit of money], and a widow [receives] a <i>maneh</i> [100 <i>dinar</i>], as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court. If he has signed over to her a field worth 100 <i>zuz</i> [a synonym for a <i>dinar</i>], instead of the 200 <i>zuz</i>, [even if] he did not write the words, "All my other possessions are pledged for your <i>ketubah</i>," he is [nevertheless] obligated, as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.
  If he did not write in her <i>ketubah</i>, "If you are captured I will ransom you, and will take you back as a wife;" or, with regard to the wife of a <i>kohen</i>, "and will bring you back to your land [your father's home],"  he is obligated [nevertheless], as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.
  If she was taken captive, he is obligated to ransom her. And if he says, "Here is her document of divorce, and [the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i>, let her ransom herself [at her own expense]," he is not allowed [to do so]. If she gets injured, he is obligated to [pay for] her [to be] healed. [However, if] he says, "Here is her document of divorce, and [the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i>, let her heal herself [at her own expense]," he is allowed [to do so].
  If he did not write [in her <i>ketubah</i>], "The male children that you will have with me shall inherit the amount of your <i>ketubah</i> over and above their equal shares [of inheritance] with their brethren," he is, [nonetheless], obligated [in that condition], as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.
  If he did not write [in her <i>ketubah</i>], "The female children that you will have with me shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property, until they are betrothed by men," he is, [nonetheless] obligated, as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court.
  [If he did not write in her <i>ketubah</i>], "You shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property, as long as you remain a widow in my house," he is, [nonetheless], obligated is [nevertheless] in force, as that is a [fixed] stipulation [enacted] by the court. [The above] is what the men of Jerusalem would write [in their <i>ketubot</i>]. The men of the Galilee would write like the men of Jerusalem. [however,] the men of Judea would write "[You shall live in my house, and be fed out of my property] until the heirs want to give you [the amount of] your <i>ketubah</i>." Therefore, if the heirs want, they [may] give her [the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i>, and dismiss her.
  
  
  
  Although they [the Sages] said, "A virgin collects 200 <i>dinar</i> [a specific unit of money], and a widow a <i>maneh</i> [100 <i>dinar</i>], if [the husband] wants to add even 100 <i>maneh</i>, he can add it. If she became widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or from marriage, she collects the whole [amount]. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says, "From marriage she receives the whole [amount], [but] from betrothal, a virgin collects [only] 200 <i>dinar</i>, and a widow a <i>maneh</i>, as he wrote [that extra amount into the <i>ketubah</i>] only in order to marry her." Rabbi Yehudah says, "If he wants, he [may] write a document for a virgin [obligating him] to [pay] 200 <i>dinar</i>, and she [may] write, 'I have received from you 100; or to a widow [he may write the he is obligated to pay] 100 <i>dinar</i>, and she [may] write 'I have received from you fifty <i>zuz</i> [a synonym for a <i>dinar</i>].'" Rabbi Meir says, "Whoever gives a virgin less than 200 <i>dinar</i>, or a widow less than a <i>maneh</i>, this is [considered] unchaste intercourse."
  We give a virgin twelve months from [the time] the husband proposed [marriage] to her, to provide for herself. And just as we give the woman [twelve months time], we also give the man [twelve months] to provide for himself. And for a widow, [the time allowed is] thirty days. If the appointed time came, and they did not [yet] marry, [any of these women] may eat from his [property], and [if he is a <i>kohen</i>] she may eat <i>terumah</i> [A portion of a crop given to a <i>kohen</i> which becomes holy upon separation, and can only be consumed by <i>kohanim</i> or their household]. Rabbi Tarfon says, "They may give her all [her food in] <i>terumah</i>." Rabbi Akiva says, "Half non-holy food, and half <i>terumah</i>."
  A <i>yavam</i> [one upon whom has fallen the obligation to perform levirate marriage] does not feed [his sister-in-law, who expects to marry him] with <i>terumah</i>. If [the woman who was betrothed to a <i>kohen</i> spent six [of the twelve allotted] months with her [future] husband, and six months with the <i>yavam</i>, or even the whole twelve months with her [intended] husband, less one day [which was] with the <i>yavam</i>, or the whole twelve months with the <i>yavam</i>, less one day [which was] with her [intended] husband, she may not eat from <i>terumah</i>. Such was [the teaching of] the earlier Mishna; [however,] a later court said, "A woman may not eat <i>terumah</i> until she enters the wedding canopy."
  If a man consecrates his wife's handiwork [earnings], she [nevertheless has a right to] work and eat [from her earnings]. [If he consecrates] the surplus,  Rabbi Meir says, "It is consecrated." Rabbi Yochanan HaSandlar says, "It is non-holy."
  These are the [kinds of] work which the woman [is obligated to] do for her husband. She grinds, and bakes, and washes [clothes]. She cooks, and nurses her child. She makes his bed, and work with wool. If she brought in one maidservant [from her father's home], she does not [need to] grind, bake, or wash. [If she brought him] two [maidservants], she does not [need to] cook nor nurse her child. Three, she does not [need to] make his bed nor work with wool. Four, she may sit in an easy chair. Rabbi Eliezer says, "Even  if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he may force her to work with wool, as idleness leads to licentiousness." Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Similarly, one who, by vow, interdicts his wife from doing work, he must divorce her and  pay [the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband], because idleness leads to dull-mindedness."
  One who, by vow, interdicts his wife from intercourse, Beit Shammai say, [she must wait] two weeks. Beit Hillel say one week. Students who leave for the purpose of studying Torah without the consent of their wives [have] thirty days; laborers, one week. [The law of providing sexual] pleasure [to one's wife] that is stated in the Torah [is as follows]: one at leisure, daily; laborers, twice a week; donkey drivers,  once a week; camel drivers, once every thirty days; navigators every six months; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.
  [With regard to a wife] who rebels against her husband, we reduce her <i>ketubah</i> by seven <i>dinar</i> [a specific unit of money] every week. Rabbi Yehudah says "[By] seven <i>tarpe'ikin</i> [a unit of money worth half a <i>dinar</i>]." Until when does [the husband continue to] reduce [it]? Until [it reaches] the value her <i>ketubah</i>. Rabbi Yossi says, "He continues to reduce, perhaps inheritance will fall to her from another source, [and] he can collect from it." Similarly, [with regard to a husband] who rebels against his wife, we increase her <i>ketubah</i> by three <i>dinar</i> every week. Rabbi Yehudah says "[By] three <i>tarpe'ikin</i>."
  One who provides for his wife through a third party, he may not [provide] her with less than two <i>kav</i> [a specific unit of volume] of wheat or four <i>kav</i> of barley [a week]. Rabbi Yossi said, "Only Rabbi Yishmael, who resided near Edom, apportioned [this double allowance of] barley.  And he must give her half a <i>kav</i> of beans, half a <i>log</i> [a specific unit of volume] of oil, a <i>kav</i> of dried figs, or a <i>maneh</i> [the weight of 100 <i>dinar</i>] pressed figs. And if he doesn't have [these], he apportions a corresponding amount of fruits of another type. And he must provide her with a bed, a mattress, and a reed mat. He must also give her a kerchief for her head, a girdle for her loins, and shoes every festival, and clothing [valued] at fifty <i>zuz</i> [a secific unit of money] every year. He must not give her new garments in the summer season nor worn-out ones in the rainy season; rather, he must give her clothing [valued] at fifty <i>zuz</i> in the rainy season, so that she wears the worn-out ones in the summer season. And the worn-out ones [from the previous year] belong to her.
  He must give her [an allowance of] a <i>ma'ah</i> [a specific unit of money] of silver for her [weekly] needs, and she eats with him every Shabbat eve. And if he does not give her a <i>ma'ah</i> of silver for her [weekly] needs, her handiwork [earnings] belong to her.  What [amount of work] must she do for him? Five <i>selah</i> weight [of spun wool] for warp in Judea, which are [equal to] ten <i>selah</i> in the Galilee; or ten <i>selah</i> weight for woof in Judea, which are [equal to] twenty <i>selah</i> in the Galilee. If she was nursing, we reduce the [required] quantity of her handiwork, and and we increase the amount of food [with which she is provided]. About whom are the [above conditions]  speaking? About the poor in Israel. However, with regard to a person of honor [and social status], everything is according to his honor.
  
  
  
  Whatever a woman finds, as well as her handiwork belongs to her husband. With regard to her inheritance, he enjoys the usufruct during her life. [Damages awarded for] her disgrace or her deterioration belong to her. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says, "When [the injury inflicted on her] is hidden [i.e., not visible when she is clothed] two-thirds [of the damages] belong to her, and one-third to [the husband]. When it is in the open, two-thirds belong to him and one-third to her. His [share must be]  paid at once; and [for] hers,  land should be bought [with the money], and [the husband] enjoys the usufruct."
  If one agrees to pay money [as dowry] to his [future] son-in-law, and his son-in-law dies, the Sages say, "He may say [to the brother of the deceased, who will perform levirate marriage], "To your brother I wanted to give [the money], but to you I do not intend to give it."
  If [the bride] promises to bring in [as a dowry] 1,000 <i>dinar</i> [a specific unit of money], he must correspondingly apportion fifteen <i>maneh</i> [ a specific unit of money worth 100 <i>dinar</i>] [in the <i>ketubah</i>]. But corresponding to [articles subject to] appraisal, he apportions to her one-fifth less [than their valuation].  [Should the articles be] appraised at a <i>maneh</i>, and are [actually] worth a <i>maneh</i>, he has only one <i>maneh</i>. [For articles that are] appraised [in the <i>ketuba</i> at a maneh, she must give [him property worth] thirty-one <i>selah</i> and a <i>dinar</i> [a total of 125 <i>dinar</i>]. And for four hundred <i>dinar</i>, she must bring him [property worth] five hundred. Whatever the bridegroom apportions [in the <i>ketubah</i> corresponding to the appraised dowry], he apportions is by deducting one fifth.
  If she promises to bring in [a dowry of] money, he must [in the <i>ketubah</i>] assign her six <i>dinar</i> for every <i>selah</i> [a specific unit of money worth four <i>dinar</i>]. The bridegroom must also accept upon himself [to give her] ten <i>dinar</i> for the basket [i.e., so she may purchase perfumes] for each and every <i>maneh</i> [that she brings him]. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Everything is in accordance with the custom of the country."
  One who marries off his daughter plainly [without any stipulation as to dowry] may not give her less than fifty <i>zuz</i>. If [the father] stipulated that [the husband] is to marry her without clothing [as part of her dowry], the husband may not say, "When I bring her into my house I will cover her with my garments." Rather, he must clothe her while she is still in her father's house. Similarly, one who marries off an orphan may not give her less than fifty <i>zuz</i>. And if there is [sufficient means] in the [charity] box [from which she is being provided for], we provide her [with an outfit] in accordance with her honor.
  [With regard to] an orphan who was married off by her mother or her brothers with her consent, and they had written [i.e, assigned a dowry] for her a hundred or fifty <i>zuz</i>, when she comes of age she may recover from them whatever is her due. Rabbi Yehudah says, "If [the father] had married off the first daughter, [the dowry should be] given to the second [daughter] in the same manner as he had given to the first." The Sages say, "Sometimes a man was poor and became rich, or was rich and became poor; rather, we appraise the property [the father left], and we give her [her fair share].
  If a person entrusts another with money for [to purchase a field or a dowry for] his daughter, and she says, "I trust my [future] husband, [so give me the money]," the trustee must [nevertheless] act in accordance with [set of the instructions] that was entrusted to him. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yossi says, "And if [what he gives her now] is merely a field which she wants to sell, it is [as though] it is already sold." With regard to what were these words stated? With regard to an adult woman; but with regard to a minor, the actions of a minor are meaningless.
  
  
  
  [With regard to] one who vows [to prohibit] his wife from benefiting from him, up to thirty days, he must appoint an administrator [to provide for her needs]. More than that he must divorce her and pay [the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband]. Rabbi Yehudah says, "With [regard to] an Israelite, [for] one month he may maintain her [as a wife], [but] two , he must divorce her and pay [the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i>. With [regard to] a <i>kohenet</i>, [for] two [months] he may maintain her, [but] three, he must divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>.
  One who vows [to prohibit] his wife from tasting one [particular] kind of fruit, must [at once] divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>. Rabbi Yehudah says, "With [regard to] an  Israelite, [if the vow is for] one day, he may maintain her [as a wife], [but] two, he must divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>. With [regard to] a <i>kohenet</i>, for two [days], he may maintain her, [but] three, he must divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>."
  One who vows [to prohibit] his wife from adorning herself with any particular type [of adornment], must divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>. Rabbi Yossi says, "[In the case] of a poor woman, [this is only] if he set no limit [to the duration of the vow]; for rich women, [the limit is] thirty days.
  [With regard to] one who vows [to prohibit] his wife from entering her father's house,  when the father [resides] with her in the [same] town, [then if the vow extends to] one month, he may maintain her [as a wife]; [but] two, he must divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>. But when the father [resides] in another town, [if the vow extends to] one festival, he may maintain her;  [but] three, he must divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>.
  One who vows [to prohibit] his wife from entering a house of mourning or a house of feasting [i.e., a wedding feast], must divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>, because he is locking [the doors of comfort and rejoicing] in her face. But if he claims [that there is a good reason for keeping the vow], he is permitted [to remain married to her]. If he says to her, "[I will annul your vow only] on condition that you tell So and So what you said to me" or " that which I said to you," or that she must fill [a given number of buckets of water] and pour [them] on a garbage dump,  he must divorce her and pay her <i>ketubah</i>.
  The following women are divorced, and do not receive [the amount of] their <i>ketubah</i>: One who violates Mosaic Law or Jewish custom. What constitutes [a violation of] Mosaic Law? If she feeds him untithed [food]; if she engages in intercourse with him while she was a <i>niddah</i> [a female who has menstrual discharges which render her impure];  if she does not set apart <i>challah</i>[a portion of a batch of bread dough given to a <i>kohen</i> which becomes holy upon separation, and can only be consumed by <i>kohanim</i> or their household]; and if she makes vows, but does not fulfill [them]. What constitutes [a violation of] Jewish custom? [If] she goes out [in public] with her hair uncovered; [if] she spins [thread] in the market, and converses [flirtatiously] with any man. Abba Saul says, "Also one who curses his children in his presence." Rabbi Tarfon says, "[Also] a noisy woman." What constitutes a noisy woman? One who speaks in her own house [so loudly] that her neighbors can hear her voice.
  If a man betrothes a woman on condition that she is not subject to any vows, and it is discovered that she is subject to vows, she is not betrothed. If he married her without conditions and it is discovered that she is subject to vows, he may divorce her without [paying] her <i>ketubah</i>. [If he has betrothed her] on condition that she has no physical blemishes, and blemishes are found, she is not betrothed. If he married her without conditions and blemishes are discovered, he may divorce her without [paying] her <i>ketubah</i>. All those blemishes that disqualify <i>kohanim</i> [from serving in the Temple] disqualify women [in this regard].
  If she had blemishes [that are discovered] while she is still in her father's house, the father must bring proof that these blemishes had originated after she was betrothed, and [the bridegroom's] field was flooded [i.e., it is unfortunate for him]. [Once] she entered the husband's domain, the husband must prove she had these blemishes before she was betrothed, and his [initial] transaction was in error. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say, "[With regard to] what were this words stated? To blemishes that are hidden [out of sight], but with regard to blemishes that are revealed he cannot make a claim. And if there is a bathhouse in that city, he may not make a claim even with regard to blemishes that are hidden, as he [would be expected] to examine her by his female relatives."
  [With regard to] a man upon whom blemishes originated, [the court] does not compel him to divorce his wife. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, "[With regard to] were these words stated? To minor blemishes. But [with regard] to serious blemishes, they compel him to divorce [his wife]."
  And these [are the cases in which] they compel him to divorce [his wife]: one stricken with leprosy; or one afflicted with polypus; or one who gathers dogs’ dung; or a copper-smelter; or a tanner. Whether [these circumstances] existed before they were married or  after they were married. And with regard to them all, Rabbi Meir said, "Even though he stipulated with her [in advance], she may say, 'I thought I could accept it, but now [I realize that] I cannot.'" But the Sages say, "She must accept it against her will, except for one smitten with leprosy, because [intercourse will] enervate him. It happened at Sidon, that a certain tanner died, and he had a brother who [also] was a tanner. The Sages said, "[The wife] may say, 'For your brother I could accept it, but for you I cannot accept it.'"
  
  
  
  [With regard to] a woman to whom property fell [by inheritance or gift] before she was betrothed, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree, that she may sell [the property], or give [it away], and [the transaction] is valid. If they fall to her after she was betrothed, Beit Shammai say, "She may sell;" but Beit Hillel say, "She may not sell." And both agree [even in that case] that if she sold or gave [it away], the transaction is valid. Rabbi Yehudah related [that] they said before Rabban Gamliel, "Since [the man] gained the rights to the woman [herself, upon betrothal], should he not also acquire her property?"   He said to them, "We feel ashamed at the [rights conceded to the husband with regard to her] new [property, which falls to her after marriage], and you wish to burden us with [the granting similar rights with regard to] her old [property, which fell to her before marriage]?" Should the property fall to her after marriage, both [Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel] agree that if she sold or gave [it  away], the husband may recover it from the purchasers." [If the property fell to her] before she was married, and she was [subsequently] married, Rabban Gamliel says, "if she sold or gave [it away] [the transaction] is valid." Rabbi Haninah ben Akavya related [that] they said before Rabban Gamaliel, "Since [the man] gained the rights to the woman [herself, upon the marriage], should he not also acquire her property?" He said to them, "We feel ashamed at the [rights conceded to the husband with regard to her] new [property, which falls to her after marriage], and you wish to burden us with [the granting similar rights with regard to] her old [property, which fell to her before marriage]?"
  Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between [one type of] property and [other types of] property. Property that is known to the husband she may not sell; and if she sold it or gave it away, [the transaction] is void. [Property] that is not known to the husband, she may not sell; but if she sold it or gave it away, [the transaction] is valid.
  If money fell to her [i.e., as inheritance or a gift], land should be purchased with it, of which [the husband] enjoys the usufruct. [Similarly, if she received] fruit that was detached from the ground, land should be purchased with [the proceeds of their sale], and [the husband] enjoys the usufruct. And [with regard to fruit] that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says, "They appraise [the field], how much it is worth with the [growing] fruit, and how much it is worth without the fruit, and [with] the difference land should be purchased, and [the husband] enjoys the usufruct." And the Sages say, "[The fruit] that is attached to the ground belongs to him, but [the fruit] that is detached from the ground belongs to her; and land should be purchased with [the proceeds], and he enjoys the usufruct."
  Rabbi Shimon says, "In cases where he has the advantage upon her marriage, he is at a disadvantage upon her divorce; in cases where he is at a disadvantage upon her marriage, he has the advantage upon her divorce. Fruit that is attached to the ground upon her marriage is his, but upon her divorce [the fruit] is hers. Fruit detached from the ground is hers upon her marriage, but upon her divorce it is his."
  Should elderly servants and maidservants fall to her [by inheritance], land may be purchased [with the produce of their sale], of which [the husband] enjoys the usufruct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, She does not [have to agree to] sell [them], because [the elderly servants] are an honor for her father's house. If old olive-trees and grapevines fall to her, they should be sold as wood and [the proceeds should be used] to purchase land, of which [the husband] enjoys the usufruct. Rabbi Yehudah says, She does not [have to agree to] sell them, because they are an honor for her father's house. If one incurs expenses on behalf of his wife's property, whether he expended much and enjoyed little [benefit], or he expended little and enjoyed much [benefit], whatever he expended he expended, and whatever he enjoyed he enjoyed. If he incurred expenses, and enjoyed no benefit, [in order to recoup his loss] he must take an oath with regard to how much he spent, and [then he may] take it [back].
  [In the case of] a <i>shomeret yavam</i> [a widow who must either do <i>chalitzah</i> or wait for levirate marriage to be performed], to whom property falls, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both agree, that she may sell or give it away and [the transaction] is valid. If she dies, what should they do with her <i>ketubah</i> and the property that enters and exits [the marriage] with her?  Beit Shammai say, "The heirs of the husband shall divide it with the heirs of [her] father." And Beit Hillel say, "[Certain] property remains in its present state, her <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband] remains in the control of the husband's heirs, and the property which enters and exits with her, of right remains under the control of the heirs of the father."
  If [the deceased] brother [of the <i>yavam</i>]left money, land should be purchased with it, and he enjoys the usufruct. [If the deceased left] fruit that is detached from the ground, land should be purchased with it, and enjoys the usufruct. [With regard to] fruit that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says, "They appraise [the field], how much it is worth with the [growing] fruit, and how much it is worth without the fruit, and [with] the difference land should be purchased, and [the <i>yavam</i>] enjoys the usufruct." And the Sages say, "[The fruit] that is attached to the ground belongs to him; and [with regard to the fruit] that is detached from the ground, whoever [seizes them] first takes possession. If [the <i>yavam</i> seizes them] first, he takes [full] possession; if [the widow seizes them] first,  land should be purchased with [the proceeds of their sale], and [the <i>yavam</i>] enjoys the usufruct. Once he marries her, she is his wife in every respect, except that her <i>ketubah</i> [is guaranteed by a lien] on the property of her first husband."
  
  
  
  He who writes to his bride [in the <i>ketubah</i> (monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband)], "I have no legal claim to your property," may [nevertheless] enjoy the usufruct during her lifetime, and if she dies, he inherits from her. If so, why did he write to her, "I have no legal claim to your property", i.e. what is the effect of such a statement? That if she sells or gives [it] away, [the transaction] is valid. If he writes to her, "I have no legal claim to your property, nor to its usufruct," he may not enjoy the usufruct during her lifetime; but if she dies, he does inherit her. Rabbi Yehudah says, "He always may enjoy the usufruct of the proceeds of her property, until he writes to her, 'I have no legal claim to your property, nor to its fruits, nor to the proceeds of these fruits forever.'" If he writes to her, 'I have no legal claim to your property, nor to its fruits [nor to the proceeds of these fruits] neither during your lifetime, nor upon your death,' he may not enjoy the usufruct during her life, and if she dies he does not inherit her." Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, "If she dies, he does inherit her, because he has stipulated [in opposition] to what is written in the Torah, and whoever stipulates [in opposition] to what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is null and void."
  With regard to one who dies and leaves a wife, creditors and heirs, and he had a deposited object or a loan in another's hands, Rabbi Tarfon says, "It should be given to the weakest among them." Rabbi Akiva says, "There is no mercy in [the administration of] justice; rather, [the property] is given to the heirs, as all [the other claimants] must take an oath [to support their claim], whereas the heirs need not take an oath."
  If he left fruit detached from the ground, whoever [seizes them] first takes [full] possession of them. If the wife took possession of more than [the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i>, or the creditor of more than [the amount of] his debt, [with regard to] the surplus, Rabbi Tarfon says, "It should be given to the weakest among them. Rabbi Akivah says, "There is no mercy in [the administration of] justice; rather, [the property] is given to the heirs, as all [the other claimants] must take an oath [to support their claim], whereas the heirs need not take an oath."
  One who placed his wife as the shopkeeper [in his shop], or appointed her as administrator [over his property], may impose upon her an oath whenever he pleases. Rabbi Eliezer says, "Even with regard to her spindle and her dough."
  If he wrote to her, "I will not [impose] upon you a vow or an oath," he may not impose upon her an oath; but he may impose upon her heir an oath, as well as those who act with her authority. [If he writes to her] "I will not [impose] upon you a vow or an oath, nor on your heirs, nor on those who act with your authority," he may not impose upon her an oath, not her, nor her heirs, nor those who act with her authority. But his heirs may impose upon her an oath, her, her heirs, and those who act with her authority. [If he writes,] "I will not [impose] upon you a vow or an oath, nor will my heirs, nor will those who act with my authority, on you, on your heirs, or on those who act with your authority," [then] neither he, nor his heirs, nor those who act with his authority, may impose upon her an oath, neither her, nor her heirs, nor those who act with her authority.
  If she went [directly] from her husband's grave to her father's house, or if she returned to the house of her father-in-law, but did not become the administrator [of her deceased husband's property], his heirs may not impose upon her an oath. But if she did become administrator, the heirs may impose upon her an oath with regard to the future, but they may not impose upon her an oath with regard to the past.
  She who damages [her rights to] her <i>ketubah</i>, may be paid only by taking an oath. If one witness testifies about [the <i>ketubah</i>] that it has [already] been paid, she may be paid only by taking an oath. [If she is to be paid] from orphans’ property, or from mortgaged property, or in [the husband's] absence, she may be paid only by taking an oath.
  What is the case of one who damages [her rights to] her <i>ketubah</i>? [If] her <i>ketubah</i> was a thousand <i>zuz</i> and [the husband] says, "You have received [the whole amount of] your <i>ketubah</i>" and she says, No, I have only received a hundred <i>zuz</i>." [In that case] she may be paid [the difference] only by taking an oath. What is the case of one witness [who] testifies about [the <i>ketubah</i>] that it has [already] been paid? [If] her <i>ketubah</i> was a thousand <i>zuz</i> and [the husband] says, "You have received [the whole amount of] your <i>ketubah</i>" and she says, "No, I have not received it." And one witness testifies about [the <i>ketubah</i>] that it has already been paid, she may be paid only by taking an oath. What is the case of one who is paid from mortgaged property? If [the husband] had sold his property to others, and she [seeks to] be paid [the amount of her <i>ketubah</i>] from the purchasers, she may be paid only by taking an oath. What is the case of [being paid] from orphans’ property? If [the husband] dies and leaves his property to the orphans, and she [seeks to] be paid [the amount of her <i>ketubah</i>] from the orphans, she may be paid only by taking an oath. What is the case of in the husband's absence? If he went overseas, and she [seeks to] be paid [the amount of her <i>ketubah</i>] in his absence, she may be paid only by taking an oath. Rabbi Shimon says, "Whenever she claims her <i>ketubah</i>, the heirs [of her husband] may impose upon her an oath; but if she does not claim her <i>ketubah</i>, the heirs may not impose upon her an oath.
  If a woman produces her bill of divorce, but there is no [written] <i>ketubah</i> accompanying it, she may [nevertheless] collect [the standard amount of] her <i>ketubah</i>. [If she produces her] <i>ketubah</i>, but there is no bill of divorce accompanying it; she says, "My bill of divorce is lost," and [the husband] says, "My receipt [of payment of the <i>ketubah</i>] is lost." And similarly, if a creditor produces a promissory note but there is no <i>Pruzbul</i> [a court-issued exemption from the Sabbatical year cancellation of a personal loan] accompanying it. [In both cases] they are not paid. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, "From the time of [public] danger and on, a woman may collect her <i>ketubah</i> [even] without the bill of divorce, and a creditor may collect without a <i>pruzbul</i>. [If she produces] two bills of divorce and two <i>ketubot</i>, she may collect [the amount of] two <i>ketubot</i>. [If she produces] two <i>ketubot</i> and one bill of divorce, or one <i>ketubah</i> and two bills of divorce, or one <i>ketubah</i>, one bill of divorce, and [proof of her husband's subsequent] death, she may collect only the amount of one <i>ketubah</i>, as one who divorces his wife and takes her back, takes her back under [the obligation of] her first <i>ketubah</i>. [With regard to] a minor, whose father married him off, the <i>ketubah</i> is valid, as he maintained her [as his wife] under that assumption. A proselyte who converts together with his wife, her <i>ketubah</i> is valid, as he maintained her [as his wife] under that assumption.
  
  
  
  [With regard to] one who was married to two women, and dies, the first [wife] takes precedence over the second, and the heirs of the first [wife] take precedence over the heirs of the second. If he married the first and she died, [and then] he married the second and he died, the second [wife] and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first wife.
  [With regard to] one who was married to two wives, and they [both] died and then he died. And the orphans claim the <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband] of their mother, [and] there is no [more property] other than the [amount of the] two <i>ketubot</i>. They divide [the property] equally. If there was surplus [property, even] of a [single] <i>dinar</i> [a specific unit of money], these [orphans] collect the <i>ketubah</i> of their mother and these [other orphans also] collect the <i>ketubah</i> of their mother. If the orphans say, "We will raise [the value of] the property of our father by one <i>dinar</i> [more than the actual value]" so they can collect their mother's <i>ketubah</i>, we do not listen to them; rather, we assess the value in the court.
  If there is any property in expectancy, it is not [to be considered] as in [actual] possession. Rabbi Shimon says, "Even if there is non-mortgaged [i.e., movable] property it is not counted [as part of the calculation]; [rather, they split the inheritance equally] until there is mortgaged property exceeding [the amount of] the two <i>ketubot</i> [by at least] a <i>dinar</i>.
  [With regard to] one who was married to three wives and he died, [and] the <i>ketubah</i> of this one was a <i>maneh</i> [a specific unit of money equal to one hundred <i>dinar</i>], of this [other] one was two hundred, and of this [third] one was three hundred, and there is only [property worth] one hundred, they divide it equally. If there is [property worth] two hundred,  [she] of [the <i>ketubah</i> worth] a <i>maneh</i> receives fifty, while [she] of [the <i>ketubah</i> worth] two hundred and [she] of [the <i>ketubah</i> worth] three hundred each receive three gold [coins worth twenty-five <i>dinar</i> each]. If there is [property worth] three hundred <i>dinar</i>, [she] of a <i>maneh</i> receives fifty, [she] of two hundred [receives] a <i>maneh</i>, and she of three hundred [receives] six gold [coins]. And similarly, three [businessmen] who cast [their money] into [one] pot [i.e., form a partnership, albeit with differing amounts of monetary interest], whether they diminished or increased [their capital], this is how they [too] divide [the funds].
  [With regard to] one who was married to four wives and he died, the first [wife] takes precedence over the second, and the second over the third, and the third over the fourth. The first takes an oath at the behest of the second, and the second [for] the third, and the third [for] the fourth. But the fourth is paid [her <i>ketubah</i>] without an oath. Ben Nanas says, "Because she is the last she benefits? [Rather,] she too is paid only by [taking] an oath." If all of [the <i>ketubot</i>] were executed on the same day, whoever precedes her fellow, even by one hour, wins . And this [is why] in Jerusalem they would write hours [into the <i>ketubot</i>]. If all of [the <i>ketubot</i>] were executed in the same hour, and there is only a <i>maneh</i> [worth of property], they divide it equally.
  [With regard to] one who was married to two wives, and he sold his field,  and the first [wife] wrote to the purchaser, "I have no legal claim to your [property]," the second [wife] may [nevertheless] extract the land from the purchaser. And [then] the first [wife may extract it] from the second, and the purchaser from the first [wife], and [this process] goes round and round until they make a compromise among them. Such is also the case with regard to a creditor, as well as [with] a wife who is [also] a creditor.
  
  
  
  A widow must be provided with food out of the property of the orphans. Her handiwork [earnings] belong to them and they are not obligated to [pay for] her burial. Her heirs, who inherit her <i>ketubah</i> [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband], are obligated to [pay for] her burial.
  A widow, whether from betrothal or from marriage, may sell without the court's [sanction]. Rabbi Shimon says, "From marriage, she may sell without the court's [sanction]; from betrothal, she may sell only with [the permission of] the court, because she is not entitled to food [from the husband's estate]; and any woman who is not entitled to food may sell only with the court's [sanction].
  If she sold her <i>ketubah</i> or a portion of it; if she left her <i>ketubah</i> as collateral, or a portion of it; if she gave her <i>ketubah</i> to another, or a portion of it, she may sell the remainder only with [the sanction of] the court. And the Sages say, "She may sell even four or five times. And she may sell [property] for food without the court; and she writes [in the bill of sale], 'I sold [this] for food.' But a divorced woman may sell only with [the sanction of] the court."
  If a widow, whose <i>ketubah</i> was two hundred <i>dinar</i> [ a specific unit of money], sells [property] worth a <i>maneh</i> [one hundred <i>dinar</i>] for two hundred, or worth two hundred for a <i>maneh</i>, [it is considered as though] she has received [the full amount of] her <i>ketubah</i>. If her <i>ketubah</i> was worth a <i>maneh</i>, and she sold [property] worth a <i>maneh</i> and one <i>dinar</i> for a <i>maneh</i>, her sale is void. Even if she says, "I will return the <i>dinar</i> to the orphans," her sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Her sale is always valid, until there is [a loss, through her fraudulent dealings,] of a field of [a size in which one could plant] nine <i>kav</i> [a specific unit of volume] [of seeds]; or in a garden, half a <i>kav</i>. And according to the words of Rabbi Akiva, a quarter <i>kav</i>. If her <i>ketubah</i> was four hundred <i>zuz</i> [a specific unit of money equal to a <i>dinar</i>] , and she sells to this one [property worth a <i>maneh</i>] for a <i>maneh</i>, and this one [property worth a <i>maneh</i>] for a <i>maneh</i>, and to the last [purchaser she sells property worth] a <i>maneh</i>  and a <i>dinar</i> for a <i>maneh</i>, the [sale] of the last one is void, but [the sales] of all [the others] are valid.
  [With regard to] a judicial appraisal in which they subtracted a sixth [of the actual value] or in which they added a sixth, their sale [made as a result of such a valuation] is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Their sale is valid, [as] if it were [otherwise], what good is the authority of the court? But if [the court] made an announcement of public sale, even if they sold [property] worth a <i>maneh</i> for two hundred, or what was worth two hundred dinar for a <i>maneh</i>, their sale is valid."
  One who exercises her right of refusal [after being married off, as a minor, by her mother and brother], or a secondary [relative], or an <i>aiylonit</i> [a woman with arrested sexual development who cannot bear children], do not have [rights to] a <i>ketubah</i>, and not [compensation for] usufruct, and not food, and not [compensation for] wear and tear. And if he married her [knowing] that she was unable to conceive, she has [rights to] a <i>ketubah</i>. A widow [who was married] to a <i>kohen gadol</i>; a divorced woman, or a <i>chalutza</i> [the widow of a childless man released from the obligation of levirate marriage by a ceremony performed by her brother-in-law] [who was married] to an [ordinary] kohen; a <i>mamzeret</i> [the offspring of certain prohibited relationships who may not marry a native-born Israelite], or <i>netina</i> [member of the Gibeonite sect][who was married] to an Israelite; or the daughter of an Israelite married to a <i>mamzer</i> or a <i>netin</i>,  all have [rights to] a <i>ketubah</i>.
  
  
  
  [With regard to] one who marries a woman, and she makes an agreement with him that he will provide her daughter food for five years, he is obligated to provide her with food for the five years. [If he divorces his wife, and] she marries another [man], and she makes an agreement with him [as well]  that he will provide her daughter with food for five years, he is [also] obligated to provide her with food for the five years. The first [husband] may not say, "When she comes to me I will provide her with food;" rather, he must bring her food to the place where her mother is. And similarly, the two [husbands] may not say, "We will jointly provide her with food;" rather, one provides her with food, and [the other] one gives her the monetary value of her food.
  If [the daughter] marries [during the five-year period], her husband provides her food and they [each] give the monetary value of her food. If they die, their own daughters are provided food from their unencumbered property [i.e., that which is in the possession of the heirs]. But she is provided with food [even] from mortgaged property [that has been sold], because she is like a creditor. Prudent men said,  "On condition that I provide your daughter with food for five years, as long as you are living with me."
  If a widow said, "I cannot budge from my husband's house," the heirs may not say to her, "Go to your father's house and we will provide you with food [there];"  rather, they must provide her with food in her husband's house, and provide her a dwelling in accordance with her dignity. If she said, "I cannot budge from my father's house," the heirs may say to her, "If you are [living] with us you [are entitled to] food; but if you are not [living] with us you are not [entitled to] food." If she claims [she needs to remain in her father's house] because she is young, and the heirs [likewise] are young, they must provide her with food [even while] she is in her father's house.
  As long as she is in her father's house, she may collect her <i>ketubah</i>  [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband] forever; as long as she [remains] in her husband's house, she is may collect her <i>ketubah</i> for [only] twenty-five years, as in the twenty-five years there is enough good [that she will have performed] to equal [the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i>. These are the words of Rabbi Meir, who said [them] in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And the Sages say, "As long as she is in her husband's house, she may collect her <i>ketubah</i> forever; as long as she is in her father's house, she may collect her <i>ketubah</i> for [only] twenty-five years. If she dies, her heirs may mention [i.e., claim, the amount of] her <i>ketubah</i> for twenty five years."
  
  
  
  There were two judges of decrees in Jerusalem, Admon and Chanan ben Avishalom. Chanan says two things, and Admon says seven. [With regard to] one who went overseas, and his wife claimed food [was due to her], Chanan says, "She must take an oath at the end [of the proceedings], but  she [need] not take an oath at the beginning. The sons of the high priests disagreed with him, and said, "She must take an oath both at the beginning and at the end." Rabbi Dosa ben Hurkenos sided with them. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said, "Chanan said well; she must take an oath only at the end."
  [With regard to] one who went overseas, and another [man] arose and supported his wife [during her husband's absence], Chanan said, "He has lost his money."  The sons of high priests disagreed with him, and said, "He must take an oath [as to] how much he spent [supporting her], and [then] he may collect." Rabbi Dosa ben Hurkenos sided with them. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said, "Chanan said well; the man has placed his money on the antlers of a deer."
  Admon said seven things. [With regard to] one who dies and leaves sons and daughters, when there is abundant property, the sons inherit [the estate], and the daughters are provided with food [by the sons]; but when there is minimal property, the daughters are provided with food, and the sons must go from door to door [to beg for food]. Admon said, "Because I am a male, should I lose?"  Rabban Gamliel said, "I see Admon's words [as preferable]."
  [With regard to] one who claims jars of oil from his fellow, and [the defendant] admits that he owes him [empty] oil jars, Admon says, "Since he admits to part of the claim, he must take an oath." The Sages say, "This is [not considered] an admission of the same type as the claim." Rabban Gamliel said, "I see Admon's words [as preferable]."
  [With regard to] one who agrees to pay money [as dowry] to his [future] son-in-law, and sticks out his leg at him [i.e., he does not pay], [the husband may] let her sit [unmarried] until her [hair] goes white. Admon says, "She may say, 'Had I agreed to pay on my own behalf, I [would be willing to] sit until my [hair] goes white; now that it was Father who agreed on my behalf, what can I do? Either take me [as a wife] or release [me].'" Rabban Gamliel said, "I see Admon's words [as preferable].
  [With regard to] one who contested [the title to] a field [claiming it was his own], and he [himself] was a signee [on the bill of sale from a separate party to the current holder] as a witness, Admon says, "He may say, '[I come forward now because from] the second [holder] I can [more] easily [contest possession, as] the first, [who took the field from me], is more powerful than him.'"And the Sages say, "He has lost his rights [to the field]." If he had designated [the field in question] as boundary to another [field], he has lost his rights [to it]."
  [With regard to] one who went overseas, and [during his absence] the path [leading to] his field was lost, Admon says, "He may walk [to his field] by the shortest [way]." And the Sages say, "He must purchase a path, [even] for one hundred <i>maneh</i> [a specific unit of money], or he can fly through the air [to get to his field]."
  [With regard to] one who produces a promissory note, and the [defendant] produced [a bill of sale, which indicates] that [the plaintiff] sold him a field, Admon says, "[The defendant] can say, 'If I owed you, you should have collected your [money]  when you sold me the field.'"  And the Sages say, "This one [i.e., the plaintiff] was clever; he sold him the land because he [knew he would be] able to take it as collateral [for his debt]."
  [With regard to] two [men], who each produced promissory notes on the other one, Admon says, "[The holder of the last dated note can say,] 'If I owed you, how could you borrow from me?'"And the Sages say, "This one collects [on] his promissory note, and this one collects on his promissory note."
  There are three lands [within the Land of Israel] with regard to marriages: Judea, across the Jordan [River], and the Galilee. One may not [forcibly] remove [his wife from one land to another even to move] from a town to a town, or from a city to a city; but within the same land one may remove her  from a town to a town, or from a city to a city, but not from a town to a city, nor from a city to a town. One may remove her from an inferior dwelling to a superior dwelling, but not from a superior dwelling to an inferior dwelling. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, "Not even from an inferior dwelling to a superior dwelling, because [even] a superior dwelling may occasion [sickness]."
  One may [forcibly] bring anyone to the Land of Israel, but one may not remove anyone. One may [forcibly] bring anyone to Jerusalem, but one may not remove anyone. [This law applies] both to men and to women. If a man married a woman in the Land of Israel, and divorced her in the land of Israel, he pays her [the amount of her <i>ketubah</i>] with the money of the Land of Israel. If he married a woman in the Land of Israel, and divorced her in Cappadocia, he pays her with the money of the Land of Israel. If he married a woman in Cappadocia, and divorced her in the Land of Israel, he pays her with the money of the Land of Israel. R. Shimon says, "He pays her with the money of Cappadocia." If he married a woman in Cappadocia, and divorced her in Cappadocia, he pays her with the money of Cappadocia.