Commentary for Bava Batra 264:2

תנן ר' יוסי אומר אם קבלה עליה אע"פ שלא כתב לה אבדה כתובתה מכלל דת"ק סבר כתיבה וקבלה בעי

imply that the first Tanna holds the opinion that both writing and her [explicit] acceptance are required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, had writing alone sufficed to deprive her of her claim according to the first Tanna, R. Jose should have said as follows: 'Although he put it in writing, she does not lose her kethubah unless she explicitly accepted.' Hence it must be concluded that the first Tanna holds that both, writing and her explicit acceptance, are required. How then could Rab, Samuel and R. Jose the son of Hanina explain the Mishnah as dealing with the case where the woman merely remained silent? ');">⁵</span> And if it be suggested that the whole [Mishnah] represents [the view of] R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, accordingly, the first part would teach that writing alone, and the second part that acceptance alone is sufficient. ');">⁶</span> surely, [it may be retorted,] it was taught: 'R. Judah said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In explanation of the Mishnah of Pe'ah cited supra 132a. ');">⁷</span> When [is it said that she lost her <i>kethubah</i>]? [Only] when she was there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the distribution took place. ');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 264:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.