Commentary on Jewish Marriage

[The Revolting Man]

That’s a good point.
Part of being a husband is provision. If you are not providing, then you are not fulfilling the role of husband. And if you are not fulfilling that role, you don’t have authority.

Soooo, what does that mean for households that share the job of “breadwinner”?

Oh I thought I was going to be able to sit back and let @Pacman be the voice of reason. But I have to pipe in and remind everyone that this verse only applies to wives who were bought from their fathers as slaves. It has no direct application to regular wives. A husband who doesn't provide for his regular wife may be a bad husband but scripture gives us no indication that he isn't still a husband.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Not according to the ones that actually lived this culture.

They discuss in detail that this passage is extending a freeborn wife’s rights to one not as fortunate. As we have discussed before. Not granting a special dispensation that a freeborn wife did not have the rights to. She actually had even more rights than just these three depending on the negotiated clauses in her ketubah.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Not according to the ones that actually lived this culture.

They discuss in detail that this passage is extending a freeborn wife’s rights to one not as fortunate. As we have discussed before. Not granting a special dispensation that a freeborn wife did not have the rights to. She actually had even more rights than just these three depending on the negotiated clauses in her ketubah.

Who wrote the Babylonian Talmud? Was it God? Because God restricted the protections of this passage to slave girls. I am very suspiciois of anyone who adds to scripture. If God wanted it to apply to all wives He would have directed it to all wives. He didn't and no one, not even a Babylonian, can change that .
Look, wives have a very important calling. Their actions towards their husbands reflect the way we're all to submit to God. Under your interpretation of the Babylonian reading of this passage Job would have ample reason to "divorce" God. All of the earliest Christians likewise could have accused Christ of violating His own scripture. Being fed to lions seems like quite the reduction of portions.
I get that lazy men are despicable but a wife's calling isn't linked to a man's actions. I'm sorry. God defines marriage, not the Babylonians.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Who wrote the Babylonian Talmud? Was it God? Because God restricted the protections of this passage to slave girls. I am very suspiciois of anyone who adds to scripture. If God wanted it to apply to all wives He would have directed it to all wives. He didn't and no one, not even a Babylonian, can change that .

To my knowledge God didn’t write anything we have in print. I could be wrong about that but I think everything we have was written by someone besides God. Even Christ didn’t write anything we have in print.

Apparently very learned Jews wrote the Talmud from Babylon. Which is why it’s called the Babylonian Talmud, not because it was written by Babylonians.

The BT is a series of commentary about Torah from the Jews who actually lived the culture, in which they explain much about the culture and Torah that could be otherwise open to creative interpretation by those unfamiliar with the culture.

For example, your interpretation of the passage restricts it solely to slaves as your Zec commentary / interpretation above shows.

Both interpretations are commentary.

So which commentary would carry the most weight? A commentary by men considered by their culture to be the experts on understanding Torah, or would the most accurate commentary be the one given by someone who could care less about Jewish culture.

Not meaning to be harsh but it’s a fair question

 

[rockfox]

The first problem with extending the passage in question to wives is it contradicts the other scriptures which make it clear marriage is for life and only the man can end it and only in limited circumstances. God only wrote this teaching about bond-women, not wives. That's not commentary, that's speaking only as far as the law speaks and not adding to the law.

If God wanted it to apply to all, he could have said women in that passage, not bond-woman. If it was true of other women as well, God would have given that teaching. But He didn't. Maybe you can make the case for this same teaching for women, but you can't make it from Exodus 21 without using fallible human logic; logic from humans whose culture finds the literal rendering offensive. If what is claimed about it is true, neither Christ nor Paul would have spoke they way they did about divorce

The second problem is everyone misapplies the passage. It only speaks of unequal distribution of resources; not feeding and providing. But Christians use it to condemn men who are laid off, men who don't go into debt to give their wives an upper middle class life, men who don't keep up with the Joneses. I've seen it used to justify a woman divorcing her husband because the husband attempted to reign in her credit card spending on extraneous clothing which was bankrupting them.

1 Tim 6:6-8

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

No one, and I mean 99.999% of all Christian men are not starving their wives. Notice what's not on that list from Paul: designer clothes, multiple closets full of clothes, fancy houses, eating out, uncontrolled spending on consumer goods. Yet when couples argue about spending issues it's not about her fighting to get enough money to buy flour for the week. It's about how much they spend on eating out, on consumer goods, on her new iphone so she can look at facebook in maximum resolution.

To my knowledge God didn’t write anything we have in print. I could be wrong about that but I think everything we have was written by someone besides God. Even Christ didn’t write anything we have in print.

Apparently very learned Jews wrote the Talmud from Babylon. Which is why it’s called the Babylonian Talmud, not because it was written by Babylonians.

The BT is a series of commentary about Torah from the Jews who actually lived the culture, in which they explain much about the culture and Torah that could be otherwise open to creative interpretation by those unfamiliar with the culture.

For example, your interpretation of the passage restricts it solely to slaves as your Zec commentary / interpretation above shows.

Both interpretations are commentary.

So which commentary would carry the most weight? A commentary by men considered by their culture to be the experts on understanding Torah, or would the most accurate commentary be the one given by someone who could care less about Jewish culture.

Not meaning to be harsh but it’s a fair question

You're being pedantic. It's not about who physically wrote the text, no one argues that, but which are considered inspired by God. And not only does Christianity not consider the Talmud inspired of God, it was those very human traditions of the Pharases that Christ condemned.

Furthermore, that it explains the Jewish culture doens't mean what you make it to mean. By the time the BT was written the Hebrews has been heavily influenced by many different cultures than their own, had been sent into exile, invaded, propogandized, and the like many times over. They had added many human traditions to their law and culture. And all that came after they FORGOT about the law in taking on pagan worship. Who are the Jews? But the decendents of a people who had so thoroughly taken on the worship of false gods and all it's traditions and mental frames that they forgot about the Law of God until one day when cleaning out a dusty room in the temple they rediscovered the scrolls of the law.

I don't hold the opinions of the BT much higher than yours or mine and have a good number of reasons to hold them a lot lower.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

You're being pedantic. It's not about who physically wrote the text, no one argues that, but which are considered inspired by God. And not only does Christianity not consider the Talmud inspired of God, it was those very human traditions of the Pharases that Christ condemned.

Who gets to decide which passages are considered inspired by God?

For the record, I do not consider Jewish commentary to be inspired, rather a historical record and in the case of the BT, a historical legal record. It’s literally the equivalent of someone 2300 years from now, examining the Federalist papers to better understand the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

As to the second part of your statement, you really should educate yourself further into which traditions the Pharisees created. The Babylonian Talmud predates the Pharisees by hundreds of years and is the oldest record I’m aware of outside of the Bible of Jewish culture from Jewish sources. In fact, I do not recall any place in the BT that would qualify as something Christ corrected in the Scriptures. I am also not a fan of the Pharisees or their attempts to edit scripture or their historical revisionism or any other method they used to attempt to disprove the divinity and import of Christ, however, an attempt to discredit the BT based upon a Pharisaical Bias is the height of folly as the Pharisees did most of their traditions about 300 years later and their anti - Christ revisionism about 5-600 years later.

 

[The Revolting Man]

To my knowledge God didn’t write anything we have in print. I could be wrong about that but I think everything we have was written by someone besides God. Even Christ didn’t write anything we have in print.

Apparently very learned Jews wrote the Talmud from Babylon. Which is why it’s called the Babylonian Talmud, not because it was written by Babylonians.

The BT is a series of commentary about Torah from the Jews who actually lived the culture, in which they explain much about the culture and Torah that could be otherwise open to creative interpretation by those unfamiliar with the culture.

For example, your interpretation of the passage restricts it solely to slaves as your Zec commentary / interpretation above shows.

Both interpretations are commentary.

So which commentary would carry the most weight? A commentary by men considered by their culture to be the experts on understanding Torah, or would the most accurate commentary be the one given by someone who could care less about Jewish culture.

Not meaning to be harsh but it’s a fair question

Here we go again. The commentary that carries the most weight is the one that sticks closest to the text. In this case the Zec commentary is far superior to the Babylonian one. And God did write the Bible, just because His pens had names and faces doesn't obscure that point.
Let's not do this again. Let's leave it at this, I am convinced that you have a disturbing habit of editing scripture on the authority of questionable sources. You are convinced of something about me that I'm entirely sure of but it makes sense to you and means that there is a lot of knowledge left out of the Bible that has to be added back in. Everyone knows how this goes from here. I just popped in with that so others reading this thread later will hear the alternative and not fall back in to the age old trap of letting the traditions of men make null the Word of God. I know I'm not going to convince you.

 

[The Revolting Man]

To my knowledge God didn’t write anything we have in print. I could be wrong about that but I think everything we have was written by someone besides God. Even Christ didn’t write anything we have in print.

Apparently very learned Jews wrote the Talmud from Babylon. Which is why it’s called the Babylonian Talmud, not because it was written by Babylonians.

The BT is a series of commentary about Torah from the Jews who actually lived the culture, in which they explain much about the culture and Torah that could be otherwise open to creative interpretation by those unfamiliar with the culture.

For example, your interpretation of the passage restricts it solely to slaves as your Zec commentary / interpretation above shows.

Both interpretations are commentary.

So which commentary would carry the most weight? A commentary by men considered by their culture to be the experts on understanding Torah, or would the most accurate commentary be the one given by someone who could care less about Jewish culture.

Not meaning to be harsh but it’s a fair question

I just want to look up the "Babylonian Talmud" and lo and behold it's just the plain, regular old Talmud that was compiled after A.D. 70 by non-believing Jews to try and reform the faith after the destruction of the Second Temple. These were not God fearing, Old Testament Hebrews living Torah. These were the remnants of the Pharisees who were trying to keep Christianity at bay decades after the Crucifixion.

Nothing the Talmud says should ever be used to re-interpret the Bible. The Talmudic Rabbis were creating an alternative to the Torah. It may have some value but it is not to be used to add to the Bible.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Who gets to decide which passages are considered inspired by God?

For the record, I do not consider Jewish commentary to be inspired, rather a historical record and in the case of the BT, a historical legal record. It’s literally the equivalent of someone 2300 years from now, examining the Federalist papers to better understand the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

As to the second part of your statement, you really should educate yourself further into which traditions the Pharisees created. The Babylonian Talmud predates the Pharisees by hundreds of years and is the oldest record I’m aware of outside of the Bible of Jewish culture from Jewish sources. In fact, I do not recall any place in the BT that would qualify as something Christ corrected in the Scriptures. I am also not a fan of the Pharisees or their attempts to edit scripture or their historical revisionism or any other method they used to attempt to disprove the divinity and import of Christ, however, an attempt to discredit the BT based upon a Pharisaical Bias is the height of folly as the Pharisees did most of their traditions about 300 years later and their anti - Christ revisionism about 5-600 years later.

This is NOT true! The Babylonian Talmud is the regular old Talmud, which was compiled for 70 A.D. through the 5th century. It was compiled by the remnants of the Pharisees.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I think that too much is being made of the last phrase, the go free part.
I would propose that the same YHWH who hates divorce also hates the starving out of the first wife when a man adds another.
You can dance around the parsing of Scripture all day long and argue over interpretation, but starving a woman is abuse and I would never stand in the way of a woman leaving if she is in ACTUAL abuse.
“He has me on a diet that she isn’t required to follow” doesn’t qualify.

This isn't what anyone is really saying. Again anytime we talk about whether a woman can leave her husband it's assumed that we mean with the freedom to remarry. Obviously she is allowed to leave for any reason as long as she doesn't remarry.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

This thread has been started to answer a charge by Zec against my utilizing the Babylonian Talmud to clarify the passage about a slave wife from Exodus 21. The above posts were copied from this thread to avoid derailing the thread any further.

@rustywest4 , @Joleneakamama , @Mage Hi guys, I have a lot of respect for you Rusty and while I frequently butt heads with you Jolene I have never doubted your intellectual rigor. Mage I have like many of your posts and I have been impressed by you. But all three of you liked this statement by @Verifyveritas76 and I don't think you did enough research before you did. The Talmud wasn't even started until 40 years after Christ's death. It was allegedly based on "oral tradition" but given what we know about the Jew's superb use of the written word we can pretty much discount that claim. If it wasn't written down before A.D. 70 it didn't exist in the Jewish culture. And it certainly wasn't the product of the Old Testament Hebrews living in the captivity as the frequent use of the phrase "Babylonian Talmud" would imply. Here there by dragons folks and I hope you'll be careful.

As to my claim that the Babylonian Talmud was codified in written form hundreds of years prior to Christ, that is incorrect and unprovable. It is easy enough to verify that the written official form of the Babylonian Talmud was compiled in various stages from the middle of the 1st Century CE to its final? Edition around 5th Century CE.

Apparently, I conflated this documents history with another I was told about. I was undoubtedly wrong about the dates it was written under, but am convinced that the information existed in Oral form further back than it is possible to verify myself.

Rabbis of the Talmudic era conceived of the Oral Torah in two distinct ways.[17] First, Rabbinic tradition saw the Oral Torah as an unbroken chain of transmission. The distinctive feature of this view was that Oral Torah was "conveyed by word of mouth and memorized."[18] Second, the Rabbis also viewed the Oral Torah as an interpretive tradition, and not merely as memorized traditions. They saw the written Torah as containing many levels of interpretation. It was left to later generations, who were steeped in the oral tradition of interpretation, to discover those ("hidden") interpretations not revealed by Moses.[19] Instead, Moses was obligated to impart the explanations orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus forbidden to write and publish the Oral Torah.[20]

Jewish tradition identifies the unbroken historical chain of individuals who were entrusted with passing down the Oral Law from Moses to the early rabbinic period: "Moses received the Torah and handed it down to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly."[21][22] Similarly, Maimonides provides a generation by generation account of the names of all those in the direct line that transmitted this tradition, beginning with Mosesup until Ravina and Rav Ashi, the rabbis who compiled the Babylonian Talmud.[23]

In addition to the above, archeological evidence supports the claims of an Oral Transmission of these
Commentaries and rulings on Jewish culture.

Archaeologists have uncovered evidence relating to religious rituals and practices current, prior to the codification of the Mishnah, from which it can be inferred that Judah HaNasi and his contemporaries recorded, rather than innovated, normative Judaism as practiced during the 1st century CE and prior. For example, excavations at Qumran have yielded specimens of tefillin and parchment scrolls.[10]Likewise, the structure and placement of ritual baths at Masada appears to be consistent with the rabbinic requirements per the Mishnaic tractate Mikvaot, though they were constructed approximately 120 years before the Mishnah was compiled.[11] A clay seal discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractate Shekalim chapter 5.[12] The Elephantine papyriinclude a "Passover letter" (419 BCE) which already included many of the pesach observances of today,[13] and the first known text of a Ketubah (about 440 BCE). The Qumran Halachic Letter,[14] which records approximately a dozen disputes regarding the application of halakha, also testifies to the evolutionary process of the Oral Law.

Similarly, the Targum Onkelos (1st century CE) is largely consistent with the oral tradition as recorded in the midrash, redacted into writing only in the 3rd or 4th century.[15]

Obviously, the Bible is our authority on all matters of Life and Marriage, but how do we answer difficult questions about marriage and family from passages that can seem unclear at best and at worst, could be interpreted various different ways, depending on cultural and religious biases?

Where do we go for clarity? What sources are “acceptable” for consideration?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

This is the legal commentary by these Rabbis on the Exodus 21:10 passage. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.


Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 51b


There is, however, another class of woman who is permitted even if she was not seized. And who is that? A woman whose betrothal was a mistaken one,48 and who may, even if her son sits riding on her shoulder, make a declaration of refusal49 [against her husband] and go away.

1. When a condition which remained unfulfilled was attached to it. In such a case the woman may leave her husband without a letter of divorce and she has the status of a feme sole who had never before been married.
2. V. Glos. s.v. mi'un. [Isaiah Trani: This is not to be taken do not. It means simply that she is permitted to marry another man without a bill of divorce].

MI'UN

(Lit., 'refusal'); a declaration by a fatherless girl who has been married off by her mother or brothers under age, that she does not wish to live with her husband. Such a declaration made by her in the presence of a Beth din secures her freedom without the requirement of a Get.


NESU'AH

A married woman after home-taking (nissu'in, q.v.), whereby the marriage is completed in the sense that cohabitation is permitted; opposed to arusah, q.v., with whom cohabitation is yet prohibited.

NISSU'IN

The ceremony of home-taking, which completes the marriage.

ARUS

The technical term for a husband of a betrothed woman, when erusin (q.v.) has taken place; v. ARUSAH.

ARUSAH

A betrothed woman after erusin (q.v.); v. ARUS.

ERUSIN

(Lit., 'betrothal'); a formal betrothal, which cannot be annulled without a bill of divorce.

Kethuboth 74a

Kahana stated in the name of 'Ulla: If a man betrothed a woman on a certain condition43 and then had intercourse with her, she45 requires a divorce from him.46 Such a case once occurred and the Sages could find no legal ground51 for releasing the woman without a letter of divorce. [This is meant] to exclude [the ruling] of the following Tanna. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel in the name of R. Ishmael: And she be not seized52 [only then53 is she] forbidden;54 if, however, she was seized55 she is permitted.54 There is, however, another [kind of woman] who is permitted54 even though she was not seized.56 And who is she? A woman whose betrothal was a mistaken one57 and who may, even if her son sits riding on her shoulder,

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Regarding the woman above who claimed a mistaken betrothal. The Rabbi’s apply Leviticus 6:1-5 as the supporting basis for this ruling.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship,†or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

The woman had the right to leave, citing a mistaken betrothal. This simply meant that her waste of a husband had promised something to her (or her father) to get her to agree to be his wife. The father and bride to be agreed based upon a promise that would be fulfilled in the future. If these promises weren’t fulfilled, HE broke the covenant when he spoke deceitfully.

It always amazes me that a man will promise a woman the world if she will only consent to marry him, and then act like it was an unconditional covenant rather than a conditional covenant.

Kethuboth 56a

For was it not taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Behold thou art consecrated unto me51 on condition that thou shalt have no [claim] upon me [for] food, raiment or conjugal rights', she is consecrated,52 but the stipulation is null;53

Kethuboth 56b

R. MEIR RULED … ANY MAN WHO … GIVE … LESS etc. The expression, 'WHO … GIVE … LESS' [implies]10 even [if the assignment remained a mere] stipulation.11 Thus it follows that he12 is of the opinion that the man's stipulation is void and that the woman receives [her full kethubah];13 yet since14 the man had said to her15 'You will have but a maneh',16 her mind is not at ease17 and his intercourse is regarded as an act of prostitution.18 But, surely, R. Meir was heard to rule that any stipulation19 which is contrary to what is written in the Torah is20 null and void, [from which it may be inferred,21 may it not, that if it is] but against a law of the Rabbis it is20 valid?22 — R. Meir holds the view that the kethubah is a Pentateuchal institution.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Marriage, Divorce and the Abandoned Woman in Jewish Law by Broyde

Excerpt from Chapter 6 pg. 94

We all recognize that it is not the role of the secular gov- ernment to compel Jews to keep kosher, nor is it now perceived as within the purview even of the Jewish community to do so.9 Should we seek kosher laws that provide rigid definitions of kosher such that there is an appearance of unity in the kosher laws, when in fact what is happening is really suppression of reasonable views of what is and is not kosher? The answer has to be “no.” Neither government nor the communal consensus can compel people to abandon their understanding of what is kosher and what is not, whether they be strict or lenient.

What, then, should the Jewish community seek from kosher laws? The New Jersey regulatory model,10 which does not determine what is kosher, but merely directs that every seller of kosher food disclose its standards so that informed consumers can make their own choices, is the correct approach. What should a consumer do who adheres to a standard different from that employed by the pur- veyor of the kosher food? The answer is shop elsewhere. Impropriety occurs only when a purveyor of kosher food announces one stan- dard and actually employs another (even if the other standard is also plausibly valid).

The same is true for marriage. We cannot hope to resolve the ancient dispute between halachic authorities as to whether strong or weak marriage bonds are better or worse, and whether the solution to the agunah problem entails shackling the man to promote equal- ity (as Rabbenu Gershom decreed) or unshackling the woman (as Maimonides ruled). We must recognize that the different views exist, and each couple should be encouraged to declare, prior to their marriage, to which view they wish to be contractually bound

I don’t agree with everything the author presents, but this book has been verrrry enlightening re the Jewish culture on divorce of all kinds from the Bet Din courts, both currently and historically. https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...Abandoned+Wife+in+Jewish+Law+(Whole+Book).pdf

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Here’s some other excerpts from the BT dealing with Jewish marriage

Kethuboth 61b

MISHNAH. IF A MAN FORBADE HIMSELF BY VOW TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH HIS WIFE31 BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [SHE MUST CONSENT TO THE DEPRIVATION FOR] TWO WEEKS;32 BETH HILLEL RULED: [ONLY FOR] ONE WEEK.32

STUDENTS MAY GO AWAY33 TO STUDY THE TORAH, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION [OF THEIR WIVES FOR A PERIOD OF] THIRTY DAYS; LABOURERS [ONLY FOR] ONE WEEK.

THE TIMES FOR CONJUGAL DUTY PRESCRIBED IN THE TORAH34 ARE: FOR MEN OF INDEPENDENCE,35 EVERY DAY; FOR LABOURERS, TWICE A WEEK; FOR ASS-DRIVERS,36 ONCE A WEEK; FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS,37 ONCE IN THIRTY DAYS; FOR SAILORS,38 ONCE IN SIX MONTHS. THESE ARE THE RULINGS OF R. ELIEZER.



Kethuboth 63a



MISHNAH. IF A WIFE REBELS12 AGAINST HER HUSBAND. HER KETHUBAH13 MAY BE REDUCED BY SEVEN DENARII14 A WEEK.15 R. JUDAH SAID: SEVEN TROPAICS.16 FOR HOW LONG MAY THE REDUCTION CONTINUE TO BE MADE? UNTIL [A SUM] CORRESPONDING TO HER KETHUBAH [HAS ACCUMULATED].17 R. JOSE SAID: REDUCTIONS MAY BE MADE CONTINUALLY UNTIL [SUCH TIME] WHEN, SHOULD AN INHERITANCE FALL TO HER FROM ELSEWHERE, [HER HUSBAND] WILL BE IN A POSITION TO COLLECT FROM HER THE [FULL AMOUNT DUE]. SIMILARLY, IF A HUSBAND REBELS AGAINST HIS WIFE, AN ADDITION OF THREE18 DENARII A WEEK IS MADE TO HER KETHUBAH. R. JUDAH SAID: THREE TROPAICS.





MISHNAH. THESE ARE TO BE DIVORCED WITHOUT RECEIVING THEIR KETHUBAH: A WIFE WHO TRANSGRESSES THE LAW OF MOSES OR [ONE WHO TRANSGRESSES] JEWISH PRACTICE. AND WHAT IS [REGARDED AS A WIFE'S TRANSGRESSION AGAINST] THE LAW OF MOSES? FEEDING HER HUSBAND WITH UNTITHED FOOD,10 HAVING INTERCOURSE WITH HIM DURING THE PERIOD OF HER MENSTRUATION,11 NOT SETTING APART HER DOUGH OFFERING,12 OR MAKING VOWS AND NOT FULFILLING THEM.13 AND WHAT [IS DEEMED TO BE A WIFE'S TRANSGRESSION AGAINST] JEWISH PRACTICE? GOING OUT WITH UNCOVERED HEAD,14 SPINNING IN THE STREET15 OR CONVERSING WITH EVERY MAN. ABBA SAUL SAID: [SUCH TRANSGRESSIONS INCLUDE] ALSO THAT OF A WIFE WHO CURSES HER HUSBAND'S PARENTS IN HIS PRESENCE. R. TARFON SAID: ALSO ONE WHO SCREAMS. AND WHO IS REGARDED A SCREAMER? A WOMAN WHOSE VOICE CAN BE HEARD BY HER NEIGHBOURS WHEN SHE SPEAKS INSIDE HER HOUSE.16


KARETH

'Cutting off; divine punishment for a number of sins for which no human penalty is specified. Sudden death is described as 'kareth of days', premature death at sixty as 'kareth of years'.

KARETH

The law is clearly established, in this Tractate and elsewhere, that the penalty of kareth is incurred when a transgression — one of the thirty-six cited in the opening Mishnah of this Tractate — is committed deliberately without any previous warning. If the transgression was committed deliberately, after the warning of witnesses, the offender is liable in some of the cases to the death penalty, and in others, to forty stripes. [< Introduction to Tractate Kerithoth by the translator, Rabbi Dr. I. Porusch, Ph. D., Tractate Kerithoth, page v.]

KARETH

Premature or sudden death. [< INTRODUCTION to Horayoth]

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Kethuboth 73b

He raised [a further] objection against him.59 The Sages agree with R. Eliezer60 in respect of a minor whom her father had given in marriage and who was divorced,61 [in consequence of which] she is regarded as an 'orphan' in her father's lifetime,62 and who was then remarried,63 that she must perform halizah64 but may not65 contract the levirate marriage because her divorce was a perfectly legal divorce,66 but her remarriage was not a perfectly legal remarriage.67 This,68 however, applies only where he69 divorced her while she was a minor70 and remarried her while she was still a minor;71 but if he72 divorced her while she was a minor73 and remarried her while she was still a minor and she became of age while she was still with him, and then he died,74 she must either perform halizah or contract the levirate marriage.75

1. The reading in the parallel passage, Yeb. 109a, is 'Eleazar'.
2. Her father having received the letter of divorce on her behalf.
3. Like an orphan, she has no father to give her away in marriage, because though alive be has lost his right to do so after he has given her in marriage once.
4. Lit., 'he (the first husband from whom she was divorced) married her again'. While she was still in her minority when her actions have no legal validity.
5. V. Glos.
6. If her husband died childless and was survived by a brother.
7. And as the divorcee of his brother she is forbidden to the levir under the penalty of kareth (v. Glos.).
8. Cf. supra n. 13.
9. That the Sages admit that the minor in question may not contract the levirate marriage.
10. Her first husband.
11. The validity of the divorce being due to the fact that her father has accepted the letter of divorce on her behalf.
12. When neither she nor her father (cf. supra p. 461, n. 12) had the right to contract the marriage; and her husband died while she was still in her minority so that no intercourse at all had taken place when she came of age.
13. Her first husband.
14. V. p. 461, n. 20.
15. So that it was possible for intercourse to take place when she was already in her majority.
16. Because the act of intercourse after she had come of age constituted a legal kinyan of marriage, and she became thereby the legally married wife of the deceased.

HALIZAH

(Lit., 'drawing off'); the ceremony of taking off the shoe of the brother of a husband who has died childless. (v. Dent. XXV, 5-9.)

HALUZAH

A woman who has performed halizah (q.v.).

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Kethuboth 74a

Aha the son of R. Ika, his18 sister's son19 raised an objection against him: A halizah under a false pretext20 is valid; and what is 'a halizah under a false pretext'? Resh Lakish explained: Where a levir is told, 'Submit to her halizah and you will thereby wed her'. Said R. Johanan to him:21 I am in the habit of repeating [a Baraitha,] 'Whether he22 had the intention23 [of performing the commandment of halizah] and she had no such intention, or whether she had such intention and he had not, her halizah is invalid, it being necessary24 that both shall [at the same time] have such intention', and you say that her halizah is valid?25 But, said R. Johanan, [this is the meaning:]26 When a levir is told, 'Submit to her halizah on the con dition that she gives you two hundred zuz'.27 Thus28 it clearly follows that as soon as a man has performed an act29 he has thereby dispensed with his condition, [why then should it not be said] here also that as soon as the man has intercourse he has thereby dispensed with his condition?30 — The other replied: Young hopeful,31 do you speak sensibly?32 Consider: Whence do we derive [the law of the validity of] any condition? [Obviously] from the condition in respect of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben;33 [hence it is only] a condition that may be carried out through an agent, as was the case there,34 that is regarded as a valid condition; but one which cannot be carried out through an agent,35 as was the case there, is not regarded as a valid condition.36 But is not intercourse37 an act which cannot be performed through an agent as was the case there34 and yet a condition in connection with it is valid?38 — The reason39 there is because the various forms of betrothal40 were compared to one another.41

R. 'Ulla b. Abba in the name of 'Ulla in the name of R. Eleazar stated: If a man betrothed a woman by a loan42 and then had intercourse with her, or on a certain condition43 and then had intercourse with her, or with less than the value of a perutah44 and then had intercourse with her, she,45 it is the opinion of all, requires from him a letter of divorce.46

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Kethuboth 89b

Said Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda to R. Ashi: Whence is it derived that a woman who was widowed after her betrothal is entitled to a kethubah.16 If it be suggested [that it may he derived] from this passage: 'A woman who was widowed or divorced either after her betrothal or after her marriage is entitled to collect all17 [that is due to her]',18 is it not possible [it may be retorted that this applies to a case] where the man had written a kethubah for her? And were you to argue. 'If he has written one for her, what need was there to tell [such an obvious rule?' It could be retorted that it serves the purpose] of rejecting the view of R. Eleazar b. Azariah who maintained that 'the man wrote the [additional jointure] for her with the sole object of marrying her'.19 The inference too [from the Mishnah cited leads to the same conclusion].20 For it has been stated, '[She] is entitled to collect all [that is due to her]'. Now if you agree that [this is a case where] the man had written [a kethubah] for her one can well understand why she 'is entitled to collect all [that is due to her]'.21 If you submit, however, that the man did not write a kethubah for her, what [it may be objected is the justification for the expression.] 'is entitled to collect all', seeing that she is only entitled to one hundred or two hundred22 zuz?23 [Should it,] however, [be suggested that the law24 may be derived] from that which R. Hiyya b. Abin25 taught: 'In the case of a betrothed wife26 [a husband] is neither [subject to the laws of] onan27 nor may he28 defile himself for her,29 and she likewise is not subject to the laws of the onan30 nor is she31 obliged32 to defile herself for him;33 if she died he34 does not inherit from her though if he died she is entitled to collect the amount of her kethubah',35 is it not possible [it might be retorted that this refers only to a case] where the man had written a kethubah for her? And should you argue. 'If he had written one for her what need was there to state [such an obvious ruling?' It might be replied that] 'it was necessary [in order to inform us that if] she died he does not inherit from her'.36

 

[Verifyveritas76]

CHAPTER X

MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO TWO WIVES AND DIED, THE FIRST [WIFE] TAXES PRECEDENCE20 OVER THE SECOND, AND THE HEIRS21 OF THE FIRST WIFE TAKE PRECEDENCE22 OVER THE HEIRS OF THE SECOND. IF HE MARRIED A FIRST WIFE AND SHE DIED AND THEN HE MARRIED A SECOND WIFE AND HE HIMSELF DIED,23 THE SECOND WIFE24 AND HER HEIRS25 TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE.26



Kethuboth 93a

MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO THREE WIVES DIED, AND THE KETHUBAHOF ONE14 WAS A MANEH,15 OF THE OTHER14 TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, AND OF THE THIRD14 THREE HUNDRED ZUZ16 AND THE ESTATE17 [WAS WORTH] ONLY ONE MANEH18 [THE SUM] IS DIVIDED EQUALLY.19 IF THE ESTATE20 [WAS WORTH] TWO HUNDRED ZUZ [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE MANEH RECEIVES FIFTY ZUZ21 [AND THE CLAIMANTS RESPECTIVELY] OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND THE THREE HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVE EACH] THREE GOLD DENARII.22 IF THE ESTATE23 [WAS WORTH] THREE HUNDRED ZUZ,24 [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE MANEH RECEIVES FIFTY ZUZ25 AND [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE TWO HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVES] A MANEH25 WHILE [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE THREE HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVES] SIX GOLD DENARII.26 SIMILARLY, IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED TO A JOINT FUND27 AND THEY HAD MADE A LOSS OR A PROFIT THEY SHARE IN THE SAME MANNER.28



MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO FOUR WIVES DIED, HIS FIRST WIFE24 TAKES PRECEDENCE25 OVER THE SECOND, THE SECOND TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE THIRD AND THE THIRD OVER THE FOURTH. THE FIRST MUST TAKE AN OATH26 [IN ORDER TO GIVE SATISFACTION] TO THE SECOND,27 THE SECOND TO THE THIRD,28 AND THE THIRD TO THE FOURTH,28 WHILE THE FOURTH RECOVERS PAYMENT WITHOUT AN OATH.29 BEN NANNUS SAID: SHOULD SHE30 HAVE THE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE SHE IS THE LAST? SHE ALSO MAY NOT EXACT PAYMENT EXCEPT ON OATH, IF ALL [KETHUBAHS] WERE ISSUED ON THE SAME DAY THEN THE WOMAN [WHOSE KETHUBAH] PRECEDED THAT OF THE OTHER, EVEN IF ONLY BY ONE HOUR,31 GAINS [THE FIRST RIGHT]. AND SO IT WAS THE CUSTOM IN JERUSALEM TO INSERT THE HOURS [IN SUCH DOCUMENTS]. IF ALL KETHUBAHS WERE ISSUED AT THE SAME HOUR AND THE ESTATE IS WORTH NO MORE32 THAN A MANEH [THE WOMEN] RECEIVE EQUAL. SHARES.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Kethuboth 96a

R. Jose b. Hanina ruled: All manner of work which a wife must render to her husband15 a widow must render to the orphans, with the exception of serving one's drinks,16 making ready one's bed and washing one's face, hands or feet.17

1. V. supra 59b.