(104a:2)§ It is related that on the day that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the Sages decreed a fast, and begged for divine mercy so that he would not die. And they said: Anyone who says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has died will be stabbed with a sword.
(104a:3)סליקא אמתיה דרבי לאיגרא אמרה עליוני' מבקשין את רבי והתחתוני' מבקשין את רבי יהי רצון שיכופו תחתונים את העליונים כיון דחזאי כמה זימני דעייל לבית הכסא וחלץ תפילין ומנח להו וקמצטער אמרה יהי רצון שיכופו עליונים את התחתונים
(104a:3)The maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ascended to the roof and said: The upper realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the lower realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. May it be the will of God that the lower worlds should impose their will upon the upper worlds. However, when she saw how many times he would enter the bathroom and remove his phylacteries, and then exit and put them back on, and how he was suffering with his intestinal disease, she said: May it be the will of God that the upper worlds should impose their will upon the lower worlds.
(104a:4)And the Sages, meanwhile, would not be silent, i.e., they would not refrain, from begging for mercy so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not die. So she took a jug [kuza] and threw it from the roof to the ground. Due to the sudden noise, the Sages were momentarily silent and refrained from begging for mercy, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died.
(104a:5)The Sages said to bar Kappara: Go and ascertain the condition of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He went and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died. He tore his clothing and reversed them so that the tear would be behind him and not be noticed. When he returned to the Sages he opened his remarks and said: The angels [erelim] and righteous mortals [metzukim] both clutched the sacred ark. The angels triumphed over the righteous, and the sacred ark was captured. They said to him: Has he died? He said to them: You have said it and I did not say it, as it had been decided that no one should say that he died.
(104a:6)בשעת פטירתו של רבי זקף עשר אצבעותיו כלפי מעלה אמר רבש"ע גלוי וידוע לפניך שיגעתי בעשר אצבעותי בתורה ולא נהניתי אפילו באצבע קטנה יהי רצון מלפניך שיהא שלום במנוחתי יצתה ב"ק ואמרה (ישעיהו נז, ב) יבא שלום ינוחו על משכבותם
(104a:6)It is further related: At the time of the death of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he raised his ten fingers toward Heaven and said in prayer: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that I toiled with my ten fingers in the Torah, and I have not derived any benefit from the world even with my small finger. May it be Your will that there be peace in my repose. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “He enters in peace, they rest in their beds” (Isaiah 57:2).
(104a:7)על משכבך מיבעי ליה מסייע ליה לר' חייא בר גמדא דאמר רבי חייא בר גמדא אמר ר' יוסי בן שאול בשעה שהצדיק נפטר מן העולם אומרים מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע צדיק פלוני בא אומר להם יבואו צדיקים ויצאו לקראתו ואומרים לו יבא בשלום ינוחו על משכבותם
(104a:7)The Gemara asks: Why does it say: “They rest in their beds,” in the plural? It should have said: In your bed, in the singular, as the beginning of the verse is phrased in the singular. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, the ministering angels say before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the righteous individual so-and-so is coming. The Holy One, Blessed be He, then says to them: The righteous should come forth and they should go out toward him. And the righteous say to the newly deceased individual: He enters in peace, and subsequently, the righteous rest in their beds.
(104a:8)אמר ר' אלעזר בשעה שהצדיק נפטר מן העולם שלש כיתות של מלאכי השרת יוצאות לקראתו אחת אומרת לו בא בשלום ואחת אומרת הולך נכחו ואחת אומרת לו יבא שלום ינוחו על משכבותם בשעה שהרשע נאבד מן העולם שלש כיתות של מלאכי חבלה יוצאות לקראתו אחת אומרת (ישעיהו מח, כב) אין שלום אמר ה' לרשעים ואחת אומרת לו (ישעיהו נ, יא) למעצבה ישכב ואחת אומרת לו (יחזקאל לב, יט) רדה והשכבה את ערלים:
(104a:8)Rabbi Elazar said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, three contingents of ministering angels go out toward him. One says to him: Enter in peace; and one says to him: Each one that walks in his uprightness; and one says to him: He enters in peace, they rest in their beds. At the time when a wicked person perishes from the world, three contingents of angels of destruction go out toward him. One says to him: “There is no peace, says the Lord concerning the wicked” (Isaiah 48:22); and one says to him: “You shall lie down in sorrow” (Isaiah 50:11); and one says to him: “Go down, and be laid with the uncircumcised” (Ezekiel 32:19).
(104a:9)מתני׳ כל זמן שהיא בבית אביה גובה כתובתה לעולם כל זמן שהיא בבית בעלה גובה כתובתה עד עשרים וחמש שנים שיש בכ"ה שנים שתעשה טובה כנגד כתובתה דברי ר' מאיר שאמר משום רשב"ג
(104a:9)MISHNA: As long as a widow is living in the house of her father and is being supported by her husband’s heirs, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, even after many years. As long as she is living in the house of her husband, she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, at which point she may no longer collect the payment. This is because there is enough time in twenty-five years for her to do favors and give to others, thereby spending the resources of the orphans, until what she has spent equals the value of her marriage contract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said it in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
(104a:10)וחכ"א כל זמן שהיא בבית בעלה גובה כתובתה לעולם כל זמן שהיא בבית אביה גובה כתובתה עד עשרים וחמש שנים
(104a:10)And the Rabbis say the opposite: As long as she is residing in the house of her husband she may always collect payment of her marriage contract, since during this time the heirs are caring for her and she is therefore embarrassed to sue them for payment of her marriage contract. However, as long as she is in the house of her father she may collect payment of her marriage contract until twenty-five years later, and if by then she has not sued for it, it is assumed that she has waived her rights to it.
(104a:11)מתה יורשיה מזכירין כתובתה עד עשרים וחמש שנים:
(104a:11)If she died, her heirs mention her marriage contract up until twenty-five years later.
(104a:12)גמ׳ אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף ענייה שבישראל עד עשרים וחמש שנים ומרתא בת בייתוס עד עשרים וחמש שנים
(104a:12)GEMARA: The mishna stated that according to Rabbi Meir, over a period of twenty-five years a woman will spend a sum equal to her marriage contract from the resources of the orphans. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is it true that the poorest woman among the Jewish people, whose marriage contract is of minimal value, will not spend this amount until twenty-five years have passed, and Marta bat Baitos, who was very wealthy and whose marriage contract was worth a huge sum, will also spend a sum equal to her marriage contract within twenty-five years?
(104a:13)אמר ליה לפום גמלא שיחנא
(104a:13)He said to him: According to the camel is the load, i.e., a wealthy woman, whose marriage contract is of greater value, will spend more money over a particular period of time than a poor woman, whose marriage contract is of lesser value.
(104a:14)איבעיא להו לרבי מאיר מהו שתשלש תיקו:
(104a:14)A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Meir, the amount of benefit she gains is determined by the years that have passed. If so, what is the halakha with regard to whether she divides the value of her marriage contract in accordance with the number of years that have gone by, such that if some of the twenty-five years passed, she forfeits the proportionate value of her marriage contract? No answer was found for this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
(104a:15)וחכמים אומרים כל זמן: אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף אתאי קודם שקיעת החמה גובה כתובתה לאחר שקיעת החמה לא גביא בההיא פורתא אחילתא
(104a:15)§ We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: As long as she is in her husband’s house she may collect payment of her marriage contract at any time, but while she is in her father’s house she may collect it only within twenty-five years. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If she came before the setting of the sun at the end of the twenty-five-year period, she collects payment of her marriage contract, but if she came after the setting of the sun she may not collect it? In that slight period of time did she waive her rights to the payment of her marriage contract?
(104a:16)אמר ליה אין כל מדת חכמים כן היא בארבעים סאה טובל בארבעים סאה חסר קורטוב אינו יכול לטבול בהן
(104a:16)He said to him: Yes. All the measures of the Sages that prescribe specific parameters or sizes are such that if one oversteps the fixed limits, he has not accomplished anything as far as the halakha is considered. Consequently, in a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water, one may immerse and become ritually pure. However, in a ritual bath containing forty se’a less one kortov, a small amount, he is unable to immerse therein and become ritually pure.
(104a:17)אמר רב יהודה אמר רב העיד רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לפני רבי שאמר משום אביו לא שנו אלא שאין שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידיה אבל שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידיה גובה כתובתה לעולם ורבי אלעזר אמר אפילו שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידיה אינה גובה אלא עד עשרים וחמש שנים
(104a:17)Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said in the name of his father, Rabbi Yosei: They taught all of the above only in a case where she does not have a marriage contract in her possession, such as in a locale where the custom is not to write a marriage contract, but in a situation where she does have a marriage contract in her possession, she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever. And Rabbi Elazar said: Even if she has a marriage contract in her possession, she still collects payment of her marriage contract only within twenty-five years after the death of her husband.
(104a:18)מתיב רב ששת ב"ח גובה שלא בהזכרה היכי דמי אי דלא נקט שטרא במאי גבי אלא דנקיט שטרא וב"ח הוא דלאו בר אחולי הוא הא אלמנה אחילתא
(104a:18)Rav Sheshet raised an objection against the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, based upon the Tosefta (Ketubot 12:3): A creditor may collect the money he is owed even after a long time has passed without his having mentioned the debt. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If he does not hold the document that records the debt, with what is he collecting the debt? Rather, it must be that he does hold the document. It can be inferred that even so, it is specifically a creditor, who it could be assumed is not one to have forgiven his debt, who may continue to collect the debt after a long period of time. But a widow is presumed to have waived her rights to the payment of her marriage contract even if she has the marriage contract in her possession. This conclusion contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.
(104a:19)הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה לעולם דלא נקיט שטרא והכא במאי עסקינן כשחייב מודה
(104a:19)The Gemara states that Rav Sheshet raised the objection and he resolved it: Actually, the case in the Tosefta is where the creditor does not hold a document that records the debt, and the reason he may collect the debt is because here we are dealing with a case where the debtor admits that he owes the creditor money. Consequently, it cannot be proven from this case that a widow who has a marriage contract in her possession is unable to collect its payment.
(104a:20)והאמר ר' אלעא שונין גרושה הרי היא כבעל חוב היכי דמי אי דלא נקיטא כתובה במאי גביא אלא לאו דנקיטא כתובה וגרושה היא דלאו בת אחולי היא הא אלמנה אחילתא
(104a:20)The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ela say: The Sages teach in a baraita: A divorcée is like a creditor and may collect her marriage contract after a long period of time even if she has not made mention of it during the course of that time? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If she does not hold a marriage contract in her possession, with what is she collecting payment? Rather, is it not that she holds a marriage contract in her possession, and it is a divorcée who may collect under these circumstances, as she is not one who could be assumed to have waived the rights to the payment owed to her, as she does not maintain a relationship with the family that would prompt her to waive the rights to her claims? But a widow is likely to waive the rights to her claim, even though she is in possession of a contract.
(104a:21)הכא נמי כשחייב מודה
(104a:21)The Gemara answers: Here too, the case is one where the debtor, i.e., the husband, admits to owing the divorcée payment for her marriage contract, although she does not have the marriage contract in her possession.
(104a:22)אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תני רב יהודה בר קזא במתניתא דבי בר קזא תבעה כתובתה
(104a:22)Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Yehuda bar Kaza teaches in a baraita of the school of bar Kaza: If the widow demanded payment of her marriage contract,
(104b:1)הרי היא כבתחלה ואם היה שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידיה גובה כתובתה לעולם
(104b:1)it is as though she is at the beginning of her period of widowhood, and she has another twenty-five years from that point during which she may demand payment of her marriage contract. And if she has a marriage contract in her possession, she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever.
(104b:2)שלח ליה רב נחמן בר רב חסדא לרב נחמן בר יעקב ילמדנו רבינו כששטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידה מחלוקת או כשאין שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידה והלכה כדברי מי
(104b:2)The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, sent the following message to Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov: Our teacher, instruct us. Does the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis apply in a case where she has a marriage contract in her possession, or does it apply only in a case where she does not have a marriage contract in her possession? And in accordance with the statement of whom is the halakha decided?
(104b:3)שלח ליה בשאין שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידה מחלוקת אבל שטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידה גובה כתובתה לעולם והלכה כדברי חכמים
(104b:3)Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov sent back this answer to him: When she does not have a marriage contract in her possession, there is a dispute, but in a case where she has a marriage contract in her possession, all agree that she may collect payment of her marriage contract forever. And in a case where there is a dispute, the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.
(104b:4)כי אתא רב דימי א"ר שמעון בן פזי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא לא שנו אלא מנה מאתים אבל תוספת יש לה
(104b:4)When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he cited a dispute: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: They taught that a widow is presumed to have waived her rights to payment of her marriage contract after twenty-five years only with regard to one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars, which constitute the principal payment of the marriage contract. However, she still has the right to demand payment of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract.
(104b:5)ורבי אבהו א"ר יוחנן אפילו תוספת אין לה דאמר רבי אייבו אמר רבי ינאי תנאי כתובה ככתובה דמי
(104b:5)And Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She does not have the right to demand payment even of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract, as Rabbi Aivu said that Rabbi Yannai said: The stipulation of an additional sum in the marriage contract is like the principal sum of the marriage contract. Consequently, if she waived her rights to the principal sum of the marriage contract, she has waived her rights to the additional sum as well.
(104b:6)אתמר נמי א"ר אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא מנה מאתים אבל תוספת יש לה
(104b:6)It was also stated that other amora’im debated this matter: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught that she is considered as having waived her rights to payment of her marriage contract only with regard to the principal payment of one hundred or two hundred dinars, but she still has the right to demand payment of the additional sum recorded in the marriage contract.
(104b:7)אמר ליה רבי אבא לרב הונא אמר רב הכי אמר ליה אישתיקן קאמרת או אשקיין קאמרת אמר ליה אישתיקן קאמינא:
(104b:7)Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna: Did Rav really say so? Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: Did you say that in order to silence me, because you disagree with this ruling? Or did you say that because you are so satisfied with this ruling that you would like to give me wine to drink? Rabbi Abba said to him: I said that in order to silence you. This indicates that Rabbi Abba disagrees with Rav and accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan on this issue.
(104b:8)חמתיה דרב חייא אריכא אינתת אחוה הואי ואלמנה בבית אביה הואי וזנה עשרים וחמש שנין בבי נשא
(104b:8)§ The Gemara relates that the mother-in-law of Rav Ḥiyya Arikha, so named because of his height, as the word arikha literally means long, was also the wife of his brother, and she was a widow who resided in the house of her father, and Rav Ḥiyya sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, from his brother’s estate.
(104b:9)לסוף אמרה ליה הב לי מזוני אמר לה לית לך מזוני הב לי כתובה אמר לה לא מזוני אית לך ולא כתובה אית לך
(104b:9)At the end of the twenty-five years, she said to him: Give me my sustenance. He said to her: You do not have the right to continue to demand sustenance. She said to him: In that case, give me the payment of my marriage contract. He said to her: After twenty-five years, you have no right to demand sustenance and you have no right to demand payment of your marriage contract.
(104b:10)תבעתיה לדינא קמיה דרבה בר שילא אמר ליה אימא לי איזי גופא דעובדא היכי הוה אמר ליה זניתה עשרים וחמש שנים בבי נשא בחיי דמר דבכתפאי אמטאי לה
(104b:10)She summoned him for judgment before Rabba bar Sheila. He said to Rav Ḥiyya Arikha: Tell me, then, what was the essence of the case? Rav Ḥiyya Arikha said to him: I sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, and I swear by the life of the Master, i.e., by your life, that I delivered her sustenance to her regularly on my own shoulders.
(104b:11)אמר ליה טעמא מאי אמור רבנן כל זמן שהיא בבית בעלה גובה כתובתה לעולם דאמרינן משום כיסופא הוא דלא תבעה הכא נמי משום כיסופא הוא דלא תבעה זיל הב לה
(104b:11)Rabba bar Sheila said to him: What is the reason that the Sages said that as long as the widow is in the house of her husband, she may always collect payment of her marriage contract? It is because we say that it is due to embarrassment that she did not demand payment of her marriage contract, because she is in her husband’s house and his heirs are treating her well. Here too, in this case, it is due to embarrassment that she did not demand payment of her marriage contract, as you treated her with great respect despite the fact that she was living in her father’s house. Therefore, go and give her the payment of her marriage contract.
(104b:12)לא אשגח כתב לה אדרכתא אניכסיה אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל חזי מר היכי דנן א"ל שפיר דנך
(104b:12)Rav Ḥiyya Arikha did not heed the ruling of Rabba bar Sheila and did not give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabba bar Sheila wrote an authorization for her to seize his property in payment of the debt. Rav Ḥiyya Arikha came before Rava, and he said to him: Let the Master see how Rabba bar Sheila has judged me. Rava said to him: He has judged you well.
(104b:13)אמרה ליה אי הכי ליזיל להדר לי פירי דמן ההוא יומא עד האידנא אמר לה אחוי לי אדרכתיך חזייה דלא הוה כתוב בה ואישתמודענא דנכסים אלו דמיתנא אינון אמר לה אדרכתא לאו שפיר כתיבא
(104b:13)The woman said to Rava: If so, he should go and return to me the produce that has grown on the property that I have a right to receive as payment, from that day that I received authorization to seize his property until today. He said to her: Show me your document of authorization. He saw that it was not written in it: And it is known to us that these properties are from the estate of the deceased. Rava said to her: The authorization is not written well. Consequently, the property is not considered as though it were yours from the time that the authorization was written, and you do not have a right to the produce.
(104b:14)אמרה ליה תיזיל אדרכתא אישקול מיומא דשלימי יומא אכרזתא עד השתא אמר לה הני מילי היכא דלא כתיב טעותא באדרכתא אבל היכא דכתיב טעותא באדרכתא לית לן בה
(104b:14)She said to him: Let the authorization go, i.e., even if I have no right to the produce that grew from the time the authorization was written, I should have the right to take the produce that grew from the time when the days of announcement were completed, after the court assessed the value of the property, until now. He said to her: This applies only in a case where there was no error written into the authorization, but where there was an error written into the authorization, we have no right to collect the debt with it. You therefore have no rights to any of the produce.
(104b:15)אמרה ליה והא מר הוא דאמר אחריות טעות סופר הוא
(104b:15)She said to him: But wasn’t it you, Master, who said that omission of the guarantee of the sale from the document is a scribal error, and it is considered as though the guarantee were written in the document? Here too, say that the omission of the above clause is regarded as a scribal error and is considered as though it were written in the authorization.
(104b:16)אמר לה רבא בהא ליכא למימר טעות סופר הוא דבהא אפי' רבה בר שילא טעי מעיקרא הוא סבור הני והני דידיה מה לי מהני מה לי מהני
(104b:16)Rava said to her: In this case, it cannot be said that the clause was meant to be included in the document and it was left out due to a scribal error, because in this case even Rabba bar Sheila erred and thought that the clause should not be included. Initially, Rabba bar Sheila thought as follows: Since these properties that always belonged to Rav Ḥiyya Arikha and those properties that had belonged to his deceased brother are all his, i.e., Rav Ḥiyya Arikha’s, as he inherited his brother’s property, what difference does it make to me if she collects from these properties, and what difference does it make to me if she collects from those properties? Although only the property of her deceased husband is liened for the payment of her marriage contract, it should not really matter whether she collects from this property or from other property belonging to the heir.
(104b:17)ולא היא זימנין דאזלה ומשבחה להו ודבעלה מכספי ואמר לה שקיל דידך והב לי דידי ואתי לאפוקי לעז על בי דינא:
(104b:17)Rava continues: But that is not so. Sometimes the widow will go and improve the property of the heir, thinking that she will receive her payment from it, and the property of her deceased husband will depreciate due to neglect on the part of the heir, who knows that it is this property that is liened to ensure payment of the widow’s marriage contract. And eventually, the heir will say to her: Take your property, i.e., the property that belonged to your husband, and give me my property. And people will come to cast aspersion on the court as not being concerned for the welfare of the woman, who will be left with the depreciated property. Consequently, the document of authorization to seize property must specify exactly which property belonged to the widow’s deceased husband, which she is entitled to collect. Since Rabba bar Sheila erred and did not write this specification, the document of authorization he wrote was useless.
(104b:18)הדרן עלך הנושא
(104b:19)MISHNA: There were two prominent judges who issued decrees in Jerusalem, Admon and Ḥanan ben Avishalom. Ḥanan states two matters about which the Sages disagreed; Admon states seven. The mishna elaborates: With regard to the case of one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, claiming that her husband left her without funds and she is seeking a ruling that would provide for her from her husband’s property, Ḥanan says:
(104b:19)מתני׳ שני דייני גזירות היו בירושלים אדמון וחנן בן אבישלום חנן אומר שני דברים אדמון אומר שבעה מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות חנן אומר
