2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

What do you mean? Let’s “define the relationship.”
Today’s daf takes some ambiguous statements and tells us:

What is the reason for this? The statement: I am avowed from you, indicates: I am not speaking with you. Similarly, the statement: I am separated from you, indicates: I am not doing business with you. The statement: I am distanced from you, indicates that I will not stand within four cubits of you.

The only time ambiguities are not held as vows? Perhaps with divorce. The text makes it clear that when it comes to divorce, you should be very clear.
The Gemara responds: Abaye could have said to you: I say my statement even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda says that we require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce, as we requirefull severance of the relationship, and there is not full severance unless the bill of divorce clearly states that the husband is divorcing his wife through that document. 

what made me laugh was what they envisioned as ambiguous divorce:

Let us say that these amora’im disagree with regard to the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.  As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85a–b): The essence of a bill of divorce is the sentence: You are hereby permitted tomarry any man. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is an additional statement that is an essential part of the divorce document: And this shall be to you from me a document of divorce, a bill of release, and a letter of dismissal.

It’s only funny in that it has you imagine how a woman might be permitted to marry any other man without her current husband divorcing her. Grounds for saying there is a minor option that favors polyandry? Likely no… but in a polygamous world, they certain should define the relationship for women. As should we all.

Today’s gem is that, when you say you’re going to do something – do it! Don’t wait.

Unless you’re promising to become a Nazir and you happen to be in a cemetery. (Nazir’s are forbidden to be in cemeteries.)

Great text to not only keep your word, but not to procrastinate.

Little gem for today: The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who holds that the Torah spoke in the language of men, but according to the one who does not hold that the Torah spoke in the language of men, any doubled term comes to teach something.

This little nugget is discussing how we can understand that clear vows and vows poorly constructed are both vows in this context. However, in greater context, this rule – that the Torah does not speak the language of men and so every word has meaning – unlicks a whole word of meaning and midrash. A true gem.

One Hanukkah when we’re only dating, John and I were playing driedle. He took the wrappers and made a little ill shaped gold band and ask me to marry him. I asked of he were serious, began to cry and said yes.
Then he said “some day . . .”

If my Talmud knowledge were stronger, and if that knowledge would have bubbled up BEFORE all the mean things I wanted to say to him, then I might have taught him the message of today’s daf: if you make a vow, it’s made; and if you say something that sounds like a vow, it is counted as a vow.

Additionally, the mishna states that all substitutes for the language of vows are like vows. Similarly, substitutes for the language of dedications are like dedications, substitutes for the language of oaths are like oath…

Clearly, he meant it to some extent as here we are celebrating 15 years of marriage. But it took another two till he proposed for real.

When I was 16 I sent on a NFTY (North American Federation of Temple Youth) trip to Israel with peers for 6 weeks. We flew into Greece and took a boat to the Promised Land. It was in imitation of the ship the Exodus. I remember when Israel came into view on the horizon. My friend, Bethami, asked: Are you going to kiss the ground? I had never thought about that before. When we got off the ship, people fell to the ground, kissing it. Some were crying. . .

Rabbi Abba would kiss the rocks of Akko, which was on the coast of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥanina would repair its stumbling blocks, i.e., any potholes in the land, so that travelers would not fall and consequently speak ill of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Asi would stand and pass from a sunny spot to a shady one, and from a shady spot to a sunny one, so that they would always sit in comfort and never have cause to remark that they were uncomfortable in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda would roll in the dust of the land, as it is stated: “For Your servants take pleasure in her stones, and love her dust” (Psalms 102:15).

I love that we have been kissing the ground in Israel for thousands of years . . .

By the way – Mazal tov!! You’ve made it to the end of Ketubot. It ends with cryptic end of days texts, but before that – we got our gem.

We are almost done with the Talmud Katan, the book of Ketubot! And so, it’s getting really weird – talking about the end of days!

It all begins with the discussion of the importance of living in Israel – then it gets cryptic and dark.

And how does Rav Yehuda respond? It is written: “That you not awaken or stir up love” (Song of Songs 2:7), which serves to amplify and include a prohibition against Jews immigrating to Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira explain the extra emphasis of this phrase? The Gemara explains: He needs this phrase for that which was taught by Rabbi Levi, who said: These six oaths, i.e., the aforementioned three verses containing oaths, each of which contains the phrase “That you not awaken or stir up,” why are they necessary? Three are those that we said and explained above. The other three oaths are as follows: That those who know should not reveal the end of days; and that they should not distance the end of days by saying that it is still distant; and that they should not reveal the secret of the Jews to the nations.

What’s happening? Rabbi Yehudah is saying that each verse has a doubling phrase in it.
Zera then uses the doubling of the verbs in each verse to alludes to six oaths. The first three are stated earlier in the Gemara, but the next three are crazy: 1) not revealing the end of days, 2) not delaying the end of days, and 3) not revealing the secret mysteries of God to the non-Jews.

What is this talking about!! I must have missed that class in Rabbinical school. (Or can I not tell you, as the Gemara says I am under oath by God not to say?)

Anyway, the rest of the daf then talks about – you guessed it – end of days! You got to love it when it says don’t talk about this topic, not this detail, or this detail or when this will happen . . .

One of the many things I discuss with young couples who are preparing to marry is: where do you see yourself living in 10 years? While the old show Green Acres makes moving a city girl to the country look cute, it can also be a reason a marriage doesn’t work out. Often, couples meet in the 20s, living in cities and apartments. One might assume that’s the life they will have while the other eagerly anticipates moving to the suburbs. All good things to make clear before getting hitched. Our daf explains that you cannot make your spouse move from one location to another. You can’t force them to leave their home town, or city. Not even if the place you’re moving to seems to be a step up!

Granted, one may not remove her from a city to a town, as all items are readily available in a city, whereas in a town all items are not as available, and therefore the wife can argue that living in a town is inconvenient for her. However, what is the reason that the husband cannot compel her to move from a town to the city?

The Gemara answers: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: From where is it derived that dwelling in cities is difficult? As it is stated: “And the people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem” (Nehemiah 11:2). This shows that living in a city is difficult, due to the noise and the general hubbub of an urban area.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a pleasant residence tests the individual. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term tests in this context? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits [veset] or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease

Whether congestion or stomach issues – even a move to the city can’t be forced on your partner.
There is one exception though All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael.
We can make our spouse move to Israel. A man can force a woman or a woman force a man. If either refuses they divorce.
Yes, discussing where you want to live is very important in making a relationship last. Even 1500 years ago.

Today, Admon redeems himself!

MISHNA: The mishna states another case involving a ruling of Admon. With regard to one who promises and apportions money for his son-in-law as a dowry, and he went bankrupt, and he now claims that he does not have the money to fulfill his financial obligations, the betrothed woman can be left to sit unwed in her father’s house until her head turns white. If the groom does not wish to marry without a dowry he cannot be forced to do so, as the father failed to fulfill his promise. Admon says that she can say: Had I apportioned the money myself and broken my promise, I would agree to sit until my head turns white. However, now that my father was the one who apportioned the dowry, what can I do? Either marry me or release me by a bill of divorce. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

I the situation in the Mishna, this poor woman is in a pickle. Her father promised the groom a certain amount of money and then didn’t follow through. The problem? If the girl is already betrothed to the man then she is stuck! She cannot marry anyone else without first receiving a divorce/get. According to the first opinion given in the Mishna, the groom can effectively hold the girl hostage as a betrothed woman, until the father pays him the money he promised. This poor woman! She may never be able to marry, while the groom could marry others in the meantime!

Admon now comes to the rescue!

Admon says that since it is not the girl’s fault that her father went bankrupt and didn’t pay what he promised, she can force the husband to either marry her or divorce her. Rabban Gamaliel agrees with Admon.

Yay! Admon has been redeemed! But it doesn’t stop here, the rabbis think Admon goes even further in protecting the betrothed woman.

This list of Admon’s rulings are 7 instances where the rabbis disagree with him. So . . .

With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to a case where she apportioned money for herself, as the Rabbis say: Let her sit until her head turns white, as she did not fulfill her promise. However, Admon says that she can say: I thought that my father would give the money for me, and now that my father is not giving the money for me, what can I do? Either marry me or release me. And it is with regard to this case that Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon, as the betrothed woman has no money of her own, and she was clearly relying on her father to provide the dowry.

So, where do the rabbis disagree? When the daughter herself promised the money and not her father. The sages say that the husband can leave her hanging but Admon says that even if she’s the one who promised, she can still force the husband to either divorce her or marry her without the money.

Redemption. Maybe Admon is not so bad.

Our daf today tells us that Admon disagreed with the rabbis and gave a dissenting opinion in 7 cases. The first has to do with inheritance and gives us a gem of a line!

With regard to one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the property and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it. And with regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance and the sons have neither inheritance nor sustenance, and therefore, if they have no other means with which to support themselves, they must go round begging at the doors.

According to Jewish inheritance law, daughters do not inherit if there are sons (makes you think that it sucks to lose out just because you’re a girl). However, daughters are provided for by the man’s inheritance until they reach a certain age, or are married. So, the conflict has to do with the size of the estate. If the estate is large enough, then both of these rules can be fulfilled. The sons can inherit and then sustain their sisters from the estate as well. If, however, there was not enough property, or the sons are mismanaging the property, then the daughters’ maintenance takes precedence over the sons inheritance. As the Mishna says, the sons might even have to beg at people’s doors.

Now’s the gem . . .

Admon says: Because I am a male, will I lose out?

Ha! The irony! This guy is upset that there is one law to protect daughters when the law almost always favors men! The daughters don’t get to inherit. The daughters can’t serve as judges. The daughters can’t sit around and study Torah all day. The daughters are in a man’s world!

It’s such a great moment. It’s the what I hear when people tell me that there is reverse discrimination against white people. Really? Are you really being oppressed because of your white skin? Can you not get a job because of your white skin? Does the government have rules that disadvantage you because of your white skin?

Women have been disadvantaged and prevented from having equal access, equal pay, equal respect, since recorded history began. Yet, here – when the daf is trying to make sure young girls don’t have to go begging when their brothers could prevent that by going out and working to support themselves – Admon whines – that’s not fair! Why should I have to work just because I’m a guy?

Just makes me happy that this is one of the 7 cases where the rabbis disagree with him.

Today’s entire daf is dedicated to proving Shmuel wrong. What did he say that is needs to be proven false again and again in so many scenarios?

Rav said: The court apportions sustenance for a married woman, i.e., if a husband went overseas and left behind nothing with which his wife could provide for her sustenance, the court withdraws money from his estate for this purpose. And Shmuel said: The court does not apportion sustenance for a married woman.

What!? If a man goes abroad, shouldn’t his wife be supported from his estate? Why would Shmuel say no? (Now you see why they need the whole daf to figure out his thinking and to show, in various situations, that the wife IS sustained.)

Why might Shmuel disagree? The Gemara suggests, maybe he left her money for her food. Rav Papa suggests that maybe she agreed to feed herself from her earnings. In both cases, she does not need the additional sustenance.

But the daf continues to show that a woman can demand to be sustained from his estate and has even more claim that his heirs since she only needs one witness to say he died to collect while the children need two.

Next it shows cases where rabbis rule differently, however in the end we get the final rule: The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and therefore one apportions sustenance for a married woman whose husband went overseas.

So, a wife is supported by his estate, and Shmuel, while oh so wise, is overruled again and again. Why do the rabbis need to give so many scenarios? Well, makes me assume that people who did not want women in these situations to take any sustenance were more worried about their own pockets and not what’s right. They might have tried to find a dozen work arounds. Today’s daf makes it so no matter how you look at it and what excuses you give, a woman is still not going to be left destitute by a husband who goes abroad and leaves her nothing.