Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

כתובות ב׳:א׳ - ב׳:ב׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Thursday, December 19, 2019 is כתובות ב׳:א׳ - ב׳:ב׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Kesuvos Perek 2 Mishnah 1

כתובות פרק ב׳ משנה א׳

1
With regard to a woman who was widowed or divorced, and is now claiming payment of her marriage contract that is not before the court, and she says: You married me as a virgin, who is entitled to two hundred dinars, and he says: No; rather, I married you as a widow, who is entitled to one hundred dinars, then, if there are witnesses that she went out of her father’s house to her wedding with a hinnuma or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain, which was customary at weddings of virgins, constitutes proof that she is a virgin.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת בְּתוּלָה נְשָׂאתַנִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, לֹא כִי אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה נְשָׂאתִיךְ, אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁיָּצָאת בְּהִנּוּמָא וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ מָאתָיִם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר, אַף חִלּוּק קְלָיוֹת רְאָיָה:
א׳
ברטנורא

האשה שנתארמלה או נתגרשה – and she claims her Ketubah.

הוא אומר – it refers to [her stating] “when I was divorced,” for if [it was] “when I was a widow,” the heirs would say, ‘our father married you when you were a widow,” and you have only a Maneh [as the payment for the Ketubah for a non-virgin].

הינומא – there are those who say that it is a canopy of myrtles that they make for virgins and there are those who say that it is a veil that they place on the eyes and she is drowsy in it (see Talmud Ketubot 17b).

וראשה פרוע – her hair is on her shoulder; such was how they would practice to remove the virgins from the home of their fathers to the wedding chamber.

אף חלוק קליות – in the place of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka they had the practice to distribute parched corn at the nuptials of virgins and if there weren’t witnesses that they did so at her wedding according to the custom of the nuptials of virgins and the Ketubah/marriage contract was lost, the husband is believed and she doesn’t collect anything other than a Maneh.

האשה שנתארמלה או נתגרשה. ותובעת כתובתה:

הוא אומר. קאי אנתגרשה. ואי אנתארמלה, היורשים אומרים אלמנה נשאך אבינו ואין לך אלא מנה:

הינומא. איכא מאן דאמר חופה של הדס שעושים לבתולות. ואיכא מאן דאמר צעיף שנותנים על העינים ומתנמנמת בו:

וראשה פרוע. שערה על כתיפה. כך היו נוהגים להוציא הבתולות מבית אביהן לבית החתונה:

אף חילוק קליות. במקומו של ר׳ יוחנן בן ברוקא היו נוהגים לחלק קליות בנשואי הבתולות. ואי ליכא סהדי שעשו בנשואיה כמנהג נישואי הבתולות, ושטר הכתובה אבד, בעל מהימן ואינו גובה אלא מנה:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Kesuvos Perek 2 Mishnah 2

כתובות פרק ב׳ משנה ב׳

2
Several disputes between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were cited previously with regard to the credibility accorded to the respective claims of parties to a dispute. Based on one of those disputes, the tanna adds: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: This field, which is currently in my possession, belonged to your father and I purchased it from him, that he is deemed credible, and his entire claim is accepted. The court accepts not only his admission that it once belonged to the other’s father, but also his statement that he purchased it. This is so, as the mouth that prohibited, i.e., claimed that the field had belonged to the other’s father, is the mouth that permitted, i.e., claimed that he purchased the field. Even if he had not admitted that it had belonged to the other’s father, the field would have remained in his possession. Therefore, his claim is accepted. However, if there are witnesses that the field belonged to his father, and the one who has the field in his possession says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible and his claim is rejected.
וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיךָ הָיְתָה וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ, שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אָבִיו וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ, אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן:
ב׳
ברטנורא

ומודה רבי יהושע – even though that above in the first chapter (Mishnah 6), regarding what she says: “after you betrothed me, I was raped,” Rabbi Yehoshua disputes Rabban Gamaliel and states, “we do not believe the woman.” In what she said: “after you betrothed me, I was raped,” and she disqualifies herself from [being able to marry into] the priesthood through “Miggo”-the legal rule according to which the deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he (or she) had intended to tell a lie, he/she might have invented one more advantageous to his/her case (see Talmud Ketubot 16a), for if she had wanted, she could have stated, “I was one who lost my hymen through an accidental lesion and was fit [to being able to marry into] the priesthood. These words [apply] where there is [a case] of prohibition or permission to prohibit [her to marry into] the priesthood or to validate it – in this Rabbi Yehoshua disputes Rabban Gamaliel and states that we don’t believe her through “Miggo,” but where there isn’t a case of prohibition and permission other than money at stake/eventual loss (see Talmud Ketubot 23b) such as, for example, where a person says to his fellow: “this field was your father’s, and I purchased it from him,” Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamaliel that in a case like this, we believe him through “Miggo,” for if he had wanted, he could have said, “it is mine,” and when he said, “this field was your father’s, and I purchased it from him,” he Is believed.

ואם יש עדים שהיא של אביו אינו נאמן – In the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 17b) it explains that this Mishnah comes to inform us as for example, that he did not consume other than two years in the presence of the father and one year in the presence of the son, since he did not pay him three years of legal claim of undisturbed possession during a legally fixed period in the lifetime of the father, the year that he ate in the presence of the son does not count for him for the count of the years of presumptive ownership.

ומודה רבי יהושע. אף על גב דלעיל בפ״ק גבי היא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי פליג רבי יהושע ארבן גמליאל ואמר דלא מהמנינן לאשה במאי דאמרה משארסתני נאנסתי ופסלה עצמה מן הכהונה במגו דאי בעיא אמרה מוכת עץ אני והיתה כשרה לכהונה. הני מילי היכא דאיכא איסור והיתר לפסול לכהונה או להכשיר, בהא פליג רבי יהושע ארבן גמליאל ואמר דלא מהימנינן לה במגו, אבל היכא דליכא איסור והיתר אלא דררא דממונא, כגון האומר לחבירו שדה זו של אביך היתה ולקחתיה ממנו, מודה ר׳ יהושע לר׳ גמליאל דבכהאי גונא מהימנינן ליה במגו דאי בעי אמר שלי היא ואמר של אביך היתה ולקחתיה ממנו נאמן:

ואם יש עדים שהיא של אביו אינו נאמן. בגמרא מפרש דהא מתניתין אתא לאשמועינן כגון שלא אכלה אלא שתי שנים בפני האב ושנה אחת בפני הבן, כיון דלא שלמו לו שלש שני חזקה בחיי האב, השנה שאכלה בפני הבן אינו עולה למנין שני חזקה:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר