Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

כתובות ט׳:ח׳ - ט׳:ט׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Wednesday, November 13, 2019 is כתובות ט׳:ח׳ - ט׳:ט׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Kesuvos Perek 9 Mishnah 8

כתובות פרק ט׳ משנה ח׳

8
The mishna elaborates: With regard to a woman who vitiates her marriage contract, how so, how does this situation arise? If her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and her husband said to her: You already received your marriage contract, and she says: I received only one hundred dinars, she has made a partial admission and can collect her marriage contract only by means of an oath. If one witness testifies that her marriage contract is paid, how so? If her marriage contract was a thousand dinars, and her husband said to her: You already received your marriage contract, and she says: I did not receive payment, and one witness testifies about the marriage contract that it is paid, she can collect it only by means of an oath. From liened property, how so? If while they were married the husband sold his property to others, and she comes to collect her marriage contract from the purchasers, she can collect it only by means of an oath. She may seize property from the purchasers because her husband’s obligation undertaken in the marriage contract predates his obligation in the document of sale. From the property of orphans, how so? If the husband died and left his property to orphans, and she comes to collect her marriage contract from the orphans, she can collect it only by means of an oath. Or when not in his presence, how so? If he went to a country overseas and sent her a bill of divorce, so that she collects her marriage contract when not in his presence, she can collect it only by means of an oath. Rabbi Shimon says: Whenever she claims payment of her marriage contract, the heirs administer an oath to her. And if she does not claim payment of her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her.
הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז, וְאָמַר לָהּ הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתֻבָּתֵךְ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי אֶלָּא מָנֶה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. עֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ אֶלֶף זוּז, וְאָמַר לָהּ הִתְקַבַּלְתְּ כְּתֻבָּתֵךְ, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִתְקַבָּלְתִּי, וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים כֵּיצַד, מָכַר נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים כֵּיצַד, מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ נְכָסָיו לַיְתוֹמִים, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת מִן הַיְתוֹמִים, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו כֵּיצַד, הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְהִיא נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו, אֵינָהּ נִפְרַעַת אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא תוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם אֵינָהּ תּוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתָהּ:
ח׳
ברטנורא

רבי שמעון – This [statement] refers to what is above (see Mishnah 4), referring to the Rabbis who stated that a person sets up his wife as a storekeeper or appointed her as a guardian, he may impose upon her an oath [that she has not misappropriated any of his property any time that he wants, and if he wrote her: “I don’t nor do my heirs have a vow or an oath against you,” the heirs cannot cause her to take an oath. And he comes to dispute and state that whenever she claims her Ketubah, the heirs force her to take an oath and even if he wrote her that neither he nor his heirs have on her a vow or an oath, if she does not claim her Ketubah, the heirs cannot force her to take an oath on being a guardian during the lifetime of her husband, and even if he did not exempt her from the oath, for Rabbi Eliezer and his dispute (even on her spindle and on her dough, they may force her to take an oath) that we stated above (see the end of Mishnah 4), that we force her to take an oath whenever he wants, and the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

רבי שמעון. קאי לעיל ארבנן דאמרי המושיב את אשתו חנונית או אפוטרופא משביעה כל זמן שירצה ואם כתב לה נדר ושבועה אין לי ולא ליורשי עליך אין יורשין משביעין אותה, ואתא הוא לאפלוגי ואמר דכל זמן שהיא תובעת כתובתה יורשין משביעין אותה ואפילו כתב לה נדר ושבועה אין לי ולא ליורשי עליך. ואם אינה תובעת כתובתה אין יורשין משביעין אותה על אפוטרופא שבחיי בעלה ואפילו לא פטרה מן השבועה, דלית ליה דר׳ אליעזר ומחלוקתו דאמרי לעיל במתניתין משביעה כל זמן שירצה. ואין הלכה כר׳ שמעון:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Kesuvos Perek 9 Mishnah 9

כתובות פרק ט׳ משנה ט׳

9
In a case where a woman produced a bill of divorce and it was unaccompanied by a marriage contract, and she demands that her husband pay her marriage contract, she collects payment of her marriage contract, and he cannot claim that he already paid it. If she produced a marriage contract, and it was unaccompanied by a bill of divorce, and she says: My bill of divorce was lost, and he says: Just as your bill of divorce was lost, so too my receipt for the payment of your marriage contract was lost; and likewise, in a case of a creditor who produced a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, unaccompanied by a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from forgiving an outstanding debt [prosbol], and demanded payment of the debt, these debts may not be collected. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward, after the ruling authorities banned the performance of mitzvot, people would destroy a bill of divorce or a prosbol immediately after they were signed, a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects debts owed to him without a prosbol. The assumption is that due to the circumstances these documents were written but were not preserved. If a woman had two bills of divorce and two marriage contracts as a result of her divorce and remarriage to the same man, the fact that she is in possession of these documents proves that she was never paid for her first marriage contract, and she collects two marriage contracts. If she was in possession of two marriage contracts and only one bill of divorce; or if she had one marriage contract and two bills of divorce; or if she had a marriage contract, a bill of divorce, and witnesses to her husband’s death after their remarriage, she collects payment of only one marriage contract. This is because there is a presumption that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention of using her first marriage contract, and she agrees that she collects payment of only the original document. This is the presumption, unless he wrote another marriage contract for her. In the case of a minor who was married off by his father, the wife’s marriage contract that the minor wrote is valid even after the husband comes of age. He cannot excuse himself by saying that it was drafted when he was a minor, as it is on this condition, the terms of this marriage contract, that he maintained her as his wife upon his maturity. Similarly, in the case of a convert whose wife converted with him, the marriage contract that she had as a gentile is valid, for on this condition he maintained her as his wife.
הוֹצִיאָה גֵט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְתֻבָּה, גּוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. כְּתֻבָּה וְאֵין עִמָּהּ גֵּט, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אָבַד גִּטִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אָבַד שׁוֹבְרִי, וְכֵן בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר חוֹב וְאֵין עִמּוֹ פְרוֹזְבּוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִפָּרֵעוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מִן הַסַּכָּנָה וְאֵילָךְ, אִשָּׁה גוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְגֵט, וּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִפְרוֹזְבּוּל. שְׁנֵי גִטִּין וּשְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת, גּוֹבָה שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת. שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת וְגֵט אֶחָד, אוֹ כְתֻבָּה וּשְׁנֵי גִטִּין, אוֹ כְתֻבָּה וְגֵט וּמִיתָה, אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא כְתֻבָּה אַחַת, שֶׁהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ, עַל מְנָת כְּתֻבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מַחֲזִירָהּ. קָטָן שֶׁהִשִּׂיאוֹ אָבִיו, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְּמָהּ. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְּמָהּ:
ט׳
ברטנורא

הוציאה גט ואין עמו כתובה – in a place where they don’t write a Ketubah, and they rely upon the stipulation of the Jewish court.

גובה כתובתה – for it is a stipulation of the Ketubah is an act of the Jewish court and all acts of the Jewish court are like one that holds a document. And specifically, one that is a Maneh or two hundred [Zuz] is collected, but the supplement has no testimony that she should remove the document of the Ketubah.

פרוזבול – Hillel ordained Prozbul in order that the seventh year would not cancel [a debt] forhe would transfer his documents to the Jewish court which would collect from the borrower his obligation all the while that he would make a claim against him, for now we do not call him (Deuteronomy 15:2): “he shall not dun [his fellow or kinsman, for the remission proclaimed is of the LORD],” for he does not claim anything but rather, the Jewish court makes a claim against him.

הרי אלו א יפרעו – we suspect lest her Ketubah [settlement] was already collected, and [regarding Prozbul] the seventh year caused the release from debt.

מן הסכנה – that the heathens decreed against [performance of] the commandments, and they were afraid to keep their Jewish bills of divorce and when she would receive it, she would burn it and similar with their Prozbul documents.

הוציאה גט ואין עמו כתובה. במקום שאין כותבים כתובה וסומכים על תנאי בית דין:

גובה כתובתה. דתנאי כתובה מעשה בית דין הוא, וכל מעשה בית דין כמאן דנקיט שטרא דמי. ודוקא מנה מאתים הוא דגביא, אבל תוספת אין לה עד שתוציא שטר כתובה:

פרוזבול. הלל תיקן פרוזבול כדי שלא תשמט שביעית. שמוסר שטרותיו לבית דין שיגבה מן הלוה חובו כל זמן שיתבענו דהשתא לא קרינא ביה לא יגוש. שאינו תובעו כלום אלא בית דין תובעין:

הרי אלו לא יפרעו. חיישינן שמא כבר גבתה כתובתה, וזה השמיטתו שביעית:

מן הסכנה. שגזרו גוים על המצות והיו יראים לשמור גיטיהן ומשקיבלתו שורפתו. וכן פרוזבוליהן:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר