Commentary for Bava Metzia 207:13

טעמא דכתב ליה הכי הא אי לא כתב ליה הכי לא קניא והא אמר רבי יוחנן משכנו והשיב לו המשכון ומת שומטו מעל גבי בניו

R. Judah used to interpret common terms. For it has been taught: R. Judah said: A husband must bring a sacrifice of the rich for his wife, and likewise for every obligatory sacrifice of hers; because he writes thus for her [in the <i>kethubah</i>: 'I undertake] your liabilities incurred by you hitherto.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certain sacrifices were variable, depending on their owner's financial position (v. Lev. V, 1 — 13; XII, 1-8). Now, in a strictly legal sense, every married woman is poor, since she has no proprietary rights. Nevertheless, if he is wealthy, he must bring the sacrifice of a rich person. This rendering is according to the text in our editions, and means: The husband undertakes to settle her liabilities, in respect of sacrifices (Tosaf.) incurred before marriage, e.g., for leprosy. And presumably he is certainly liable for sacrifices which she incurs after marriage, e.g., for childbirth. Rashi, quoting the Sifra, gives this reading. R. Judah said: Therefore, if he divorces her, he is free from this liability; for thus she writes (in the receipt for the settlement of her kethubah), '(I free you) from all the liabilities hitherto borne by you in respect of myself.' ');">¹²</span> Hillel the Elder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the famous Hillel, head of the great school, Beth Hillel. So called to distinguish him from R. Hillel, an amora of the fourth century. ');">¹³</span> used to interpret common speech. For it has been taught: The men of Alexandria used to betroth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] the first stage of marriage, v. Glos. s.v. Kiddushin. ');">¹⁴</span> their wives, and when they were about to take them for the <i>huppah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span> ceremony, strangers would come and tear them away. Thereupon the Sages wished to declare their children bastards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being born in adultery. ');">¹⁶</span> Said Hillel the Elder to them, 'Bring me your mother's <i>kethubahs</i>.' When they brought them, he found written therein, 'When thou art taken for the <i>huppah</i>, be thou my wife.' And on the strength of this they did not declare their children bastards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though normally the kiddushin effected marriage, in that the woman became forbidden to strangers as a married person. yet since the kethubahs distinctly stated that it was to be valid only when the huppah was performed, Hillel recognised the children of those unions as legitimate. V. Halevy. Doroth, I, 3, p. 103. This is an interesting foreshadowing of the modern practice which combines the kiddushin and the huppah. [It is suggested that the clause inserted by the Alexandrian Jews was mainly designed to free the husband from all obligations until actual marriage. v. Epstein. M. Jewish Marriage Contract, p. 295.] ');">¹⁷</span> R. Joshua b. Karhah interpreted common speech. For it has been taught: R. Joshua b. Karhah said: If a man makes a loan to his neighbour, he must not seize from him a pledge that is worth more than the debt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to a pledge taken after the loan, when repayment is due. ');">¹⁸</span> because he writes thus unto him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the creditor returns the pledge for an appreciable length of time, it is first assessed and this statement written. ');">¹⁹</span> 'The repayment which is due to you from me shall be to the full value of this [pledge]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if it exceeded the debt, he would be receiving interest. ');">²⁰</span> Now, the reason [that he may claim the value of the pledge] is [only] because he wrote thus; hence, had he not written thus, he would have no title thereto. But did not R Johanan say: If he [the creditor] took a pledge from him, returned it to him, and then he [the debtor] died, the former may distrain it from his children?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is not regarded as movable property of orphans on which the creditor cannot distrain. This proves that he has a title to it even without that proviso. ');">²¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 207:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.