Commentary for Bava Batra 264:3

וכי תימא כולה ר' יוסי היא והא תניא אמר רבי יהודה אימתי שהיתה שם וקבלה עליה אבל היתה שם ולא קבלה עליה קבלה עליה ולא היתה שם לא אבדה כתובתה תיובתא דכולהו תיובתא

and accepted [explicitly]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For had she not acquiesced in the arrangements she would surely have protested at being deprived of her due share. ');">⁹</span> but if she was there and did not accept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But remained silent. ');">¹⁰</span> or accepted and was not there, she did not lose her <i>kethubah</i>.' [This, surely, is] a refutation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since from R. Judah's interpretation it follows that the first Tanna is not R. Jose, and that he requires both writing and explicit acceptance. ');">¹¹</span> of [the views of] all [the previous explanations]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of all of them'. Those of Rab, Samuel and R. Jose the son of R. Hanina, according to whom the silence of the wife although there was no explicit acceptance on her part, is sufficient to deprive her of her kethubah. ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 264:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.