📜 Mishnah Ketubot 13

שְׁנֵי דַיָּנֵי גְזֵרוֹת הָיוּ בִירוּשָׁלַיִם, אַדְמוֹן וְחָנָן בֶּן אֲבִישָׁלוֹם. חָנָן אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר שִׁבְעָה. מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ תוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹת, חָנָן אוֹמֵר, תִּשָּׁבַע בַּסּוֹף וְלֹא תִשָּׁבַע בַּתְּחִלָּה. נֶחְלְקוּ עָלָיו בְּנֵי כֹהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאָמְרוּ, תִּשָּׁבַע בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף. אָמַר רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶן הַרְכִּינָס כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, יָפֶה אָמַר חָנָן, לֹא תִשָּׁבַע אֶלָּא בַסּוֹף:

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: She takes an oath at the end of their marriage, i.e., when she learns that her husband died. The oath is to the effect that he did not leave her any funds when he departed overseas, as she is claiming full payment of her marriage contract. And she does not take an oath at the outset of his trip overseas, when she demands support soon after his departure. The sons of High Priests disagreed with Ḥanan’s opinion and said: She takes an oath both at the outset and at the end. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: The halakha is in accordance with their statement, i.e., that of the sons of the High Priests. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said that Ḥanan spoke well: She takes an oath only at the end.

מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְעָמַד אֶחָד וּפִרְנֵס אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, חָנָן אוֹמֵר, אִבֵּד אֶת מְעוֹתָיו. נֶחְלְקוּ עָלָיו בְּנֵי כֹהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאָמְרוּ, יִשָּׁבַע כַּמָּה הוֹצִיא וְיִטֹּל. אָמַר רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶן הַרְכִּינָס כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, יָפֶה אָמַר חָנָן, הִנִּיחַ מְעוֹתָיו עַל קֶרֶן הַצְּבִי:

In the case of a husband who went overseas, and someone arose and sustained his wife in his absence, and upon the husband’s return the provider demands from him the money he spent on his wife, Ḥanan says: He has lost his money, i.e., the husband is not obligated to repay him, as the provider acted of his own free will and was not instructed to do so by the husband. The sons of High Priests disagreed with Ḥanan’s opinion and said: The man swears how much he spent on behalf of the woman, and he takes that sum from the husband. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said that the halakha is in accordance with their statement. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Ḥanan spoke well in this case, as this man is like one who placed his money on the horn of a deer in midflight, i.e., he has no reasonable expectation of reimbursement.

אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר שִׁבְעָה. מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרֻבִּין, הַבָּנִים יוֹרְשִׁים וְהַבָּנוֹת נִזּוֹנוֹת. וּבִנְכָסִים מֻעָטִים, הַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ וְהַבָּנִים יְחַזְּרוּ עַל הַפְּתָחִים. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֲנִי זָכָר הִפְסָדְתִּי. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן:

Admon states a dissenting opinion to that of the Rabbis in seven cases. The mishna elaborates: 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. Admon says: Because I am a male, will I lose out? Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

הַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ כַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן, וְהוֹדָה בַקַּנְקַנִּים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה בְמִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה, יִשָּׁבֵעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין זוֹ הוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן:

The mishna cites another case involving a dispute between Admon and the Rabbis. With regard to one who claims that another owes him jugs of oil, and the other admits to the claim of pitchers but not the oil, Admon says: Since he made a partial admission to the claim, he takes an oath swearing that he owes only what he has admitted to and no more. And the Rabbis say: The partial admission in this case is not of the same type as the claim, as the claim specified oil and the admission referred to pitchers. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

הַפּוֹסֵק מָעוֹת לַחֲתָנוֹ וּפָשַׁט לוֹ אֶת הָרֶגֶל, תֵּשֵׁב עַד שֶׁיַּלְבִּין רֹאשָׁהּ. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר, אִלּוּ אֲנִי פָסַקְתִּי לְעַצְמִי, אֵשֵׁב עַד שֶׁיַּלְבִּין רֹאשִׁי. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאַבָּא פָסַק עָלַי, מָה אֲנִי יְכוֹלָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, אוֹ כְנֹס אוֹ פְטֹר. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן:

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.

הָעוֹרֵר עַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְהוּא חָתוּם עָלֶיהָ בְעֵד, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר, הַשֵּׁנִי נֹחַ לִי וְהָרִאשׁוֹן קָשֶׁה הֵימֶנּוּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ. עֲשָׂאָהּ סִימָן לְאַחֵר, אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ:

With regard to one who contests ownership of a field, claiming that a field under the control of someone else actually belongs to him, and the claimant himself is signed as a witness on the bill of sale to that other person, Admon says: His signature does not disprove his claim of ownership of the property, as it is possible that the claimant said to himself: The second person is easier for me, as I can reason with him, but the first owner, who sold the field to the current holder, is more difficult to deal with than him. The claimant might have been afraid to protest against the first one, who is perhaps violent, and therefore he was even willing to sign as a witness to transfer the field to the control of someone more amenable to his ensuing protest. And the Rabbis say: He has lost his right to contest ownership, as he signed a bill of sale that states that the field belongs to the present holder. If he established that field as a marker for another field, everyone agrees that he has lost his right. In other words, if the claimant wrote a document concerning another field and in that document he listed the first field as a boundary marker and described it as belonging to someone else, even Admon concedes that he has lost his right, as he had no reason to say it belonged to someone else other than his belief this was in fact the case.

מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָבְדָה דֶרֶךְ שָׂדֵהוּ, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֵלֵךְ בַּקְּצָרָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יִקְנֶה לוֹ דֶרֶךְ בְּמֵאָה מָנֶה, אוֹ יִפְרַח בָּאֲוִיר:

With regard to one who went overseas and in the meantime the path leading to his field was lost, e.g., the path he used to reach his land was taken over by the owner of the field through which it passed, so that its exact position is now unknown, Admon says: Let him go to his field by the shortest possible route. And the Rabbis say: Let him buy himself a path from an owner of a neighboring field at whatever price he can, even if it is one hundred dinars [maneh], or let him fly through the air.

הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ, וְהַלָּה הוֹצִיא שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר, אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּב לְךָ, הָיָה לְךָ לְהִפָּרַע אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ כְּשֶׁמָּכַרְתָּ לִי אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה הָיָה פִקֵּחַ שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ אֶת הַקַּרְקַע, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ:

With regard to one who produces a promissory note against another, and this borrower produced a bill of sale dated after the promissory note that states that the lender sold him a field of his, Admon says that the borrower can say: Were I really indebted to you, you should have collected your loan when you sold me the field, and you would not have needed to sell it. And the Rabbis say: This is no proof, as it is possible that this lender was perspicacious, as he sold the borrower the land for a good reason, because now he can take the field as collateral from him in lieu of the outstanding loan.

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ שְׁטָר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּב לְךָ, כֵּיצַד אַתָּה לֹוֶה מִמֶּנִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה גוֹבֶה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ:

With regard to two people who each produced a promissory note of a monetary debt against the other, Admon says: The one holding the note with the later date can say to the first: If I owed you money, how is it that you are borrowing from me? You should have sued to collect your debt. This is proof that your document is a forgery. And the Rabbis say: This one collects his promissory note, and that one collects his promissory note.

שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַנִּשּׂוּאִין, יְהוּדָה, וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְהַגָּלִיל. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מֵעִיר לְעִיר וּמִכְּרַךְ לִכְרַךְ. אֲבָל בְּאוֹתָהּ הָאָרֶץ, מוֹצִיאִין מֵעִיר לְעִיר וּמִכְּרַךְ לִכְרַךְ, אֲבָל לֹא מֵעִיר לִכְרַךְ וְלֹא מִכְּרַךְ לְעִיר. מוֹצִיאִין מִנָּוֶה הָרָעָה לְנָוֶה הַיָּפָה, אֲבָל לֹא מִנָּוֶה הַיָּפָה לְנָוֶה הָרָעָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף לֹא מִנָּוֶה רָעָה לְנָוֶה יָפָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנָּוֶה הַיָּפָה בוֹדֵק:

Eretz Yisrael is divided into three separate lands with regard to marriage: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. If a man marries a woman in one of these lands he may not remove her from one town to another town in another of these lands or from one city to another city, i.e., he cannot compel her to move to another land. However, in the same land one may remove her from one town to another town or from one city to another city. However, even within the same land one may not force his wife to move from a town to a city, nor from a city to a town. The mishna adds: One may remove his wife from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, even if it is in another land. However, one may not compel his wife to move from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may also not remove her from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, because a pleasant residence tests the individual, i.e., one accustomed to certain environments can suffer even in more comfortable living quarters.

הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין הַכֹּל מוֹצִיאִין. הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאֵין הַכֹּל מוֹצִיאִין, אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים (וְאֶחָד עֲבָדִים). נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת קַפּוֹטְקִיָּא. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת קַפּוֹטְקִיָּא:

All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one’s family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem. Both men and women may force the other spouse to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael or to move to Jerusalem. The mishna lists other halakhic distinctions between various geographic locations: If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, and the currency of the sum in the marriage contract was not specified, he gives her the sum of her marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, where the currency holds greater value, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He gives her the currency of Cappadocia. Everyone agrees that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Cappadocia.