Ketubot 103
ממזרת ונתינה לישראל אינו חייב לפדותה שאין אני קורא בה ואותבינך לי לאנתו רבא אמר כל שאיסור שבייה גורם לה חייב לפדותה איסור דבר אחר גורם לה אינו חייב לפדותה
But if a mamzeret or a netinah was married to an Israelite he is not obligated to redeem her, since one cannot apply to her: “And take you again as my wife.” Rava said: Wherever the captivity causes the woman to be forbidden [to her husband] he must redeem her but where some other circumstance causes her to be forbidden to him he is not obligated to redeem her.
לימא כתנאי המדיר את אשתו ונשבית רבי אליעזר אומר פודה ונותן לה כתובתה רבי יהושע אומר נותן לה כתובתה ואינו פודה
Shall we say [that they differ on the same principles] as the following tannaim? [It was taught:] If a man forbade his wife by a vow [from deriving any benefit from him] and she was taken captive: R. Eliezer said he must redeem her and give her her ketubah. R. Joshua said: He must give her her ketubah but he need not redeem her.
אמר רבי נתן שאלתי את סומכוס כשאמר רבי יהושע נותן לה כתובתה ואינו פודה כשהדירה ולבסוף נשבית או בנשבית ולבסוף הדירה
Natan: I asked Symachus: When R. Joshua said, “He must give her her kethubah but he need not redeem her” [did he refer to a case] where her husband first made his vow against her and then she was taken captive or even to a case where she was first taken captive and then he made his vow against her?
ואמר לי לא שמעתי ונראין דברים שהדירה ולבסוף נשבית דאי אמרת נשבית ולבסוף הדירה אתי לאיערומי
And he told me: I did not hear [what he said] but it seems [that he referred to] a case where [the husband] made the vow against her first and the woman was taken captive afterwards; for, should you say [that the ruling applied also to a woman who] was taken captive first and then the man made his vow against her afterwards, he might come to act deceitfully.
לא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנדרה איהי וקיים לה הוא ר' אליעזר סבר הוא נותן אצבע בין שיניה ורבי יהושע סבר היא נתנה אצבע בין שיניה
No; what are we dealing with here? A case where she made the vow herself and her husband confirmed it: R. Eliezer holds that it was he who put his finger between her teeth while R. Joshua holds that it was she herself who put her finger between her teeth.
ותו אמר ר' נתן שאלתי את סומכוס כשאמר רבי יהושע נותן לה כתובתה ואינו פודה כשהדירה ולבסוף נשבית או בשנשבית ולבסוף הדירה ואמר לא שמעתי
And, furthermore, [it was stated]: I asked Symachus: When R. Joshua said, “He must give her her ketubah but he need not redeem her” [did he refer to a case] where her husband first made his vow against her and then she was then taken captive or even to a case where she was first taken captive and then he made his vow against her? And he told me: I did not hear [what he said].
ואי דנדרה איהי מה לי הדירה ולבסוף נשבית מה לי נשבית ולבסוף הדירה
Now if [this is a case] where she herself had made the vow, what difference is there whether he made the vow first against her and then she was taken captive or whether she was first taken captive and he then made the vow?
אלא לעולם דאדרה איהו ואביי מתרץ לטעמיה ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה אביי מתרץ לטעמיה אלמנה לכהן גדול כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב לפדותה ממזרת ונתינה לישראל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאינו חייב לפדותה מדיר אשת כהן נמי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב לפדותה דהיינו אלמנה [לכ"ג]
Rather [here it is indeed a case where] the husband made the vow against her, and Abaye explains [the tannaitic dispute] on the lines of his view while Rava explains it on the lines of his view. Abaye explains the dispute in line with his view: If a widow [was married] to a High Priest no one disputes that the husband must redeem her; If a mamzeret or a netinah [was married] to an Israelite no one disputes that he does not have to redeem her, Also one who made a vow against the wife of a priest no one disputes that he must redeem her, since [the principle in this case] is identical with that of a widow [who was married] to a High Priest.
כי פליגי במדיר אשת ישראל רבי אליעזר אזיל בתר מעיקרא ורבי יהושע אזיל בתר בסוף
They differ only in [respect of a husband who] made a vow against the wife of an Israelite, R. Eliezer says we follow the original status while R. Joshua says we follow her subsequent status.
רבא מתרץ לטעמיה אלמנה לכ"ג ממזרת ונתינה לישראל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאינו חייב לפדותה כי פליגי במדיר בין אשת כהן ובין אשת ישראל
Rava explains it in line with his view: If a widow [was married] to a High Priest, or a mamzeret or a netinah to an Israelite no one disputes that he need not redeem her. They differ only in [the case where one] made a vow against either the wife of a priest or the wife of an Israelite,
נשבית חייב לפדותה וכו': ת"ר נשבית בחיי בעלה ואח"כ מת בעלה הכיר בה בעלה יורשין חייבין לפדותה לא הכיר בה בעלה אין יורשין חייבין לפדותה
If she is taken captive, he is obligated to redeem her etc. Our rabbis taught: If she was taken captive during the lifetime of her husband, and he died afterwards, and her husband was aware of her [captivity], his heirs are obligated to redeem her, but if her husband was not aware of her captivity his heirs are not obligated to redeem her.
לוי סבר למיעבד עובדא כי הא מתניתא א"ל רב הכי אמר חביבי לית הלכתא כי הא מתניתא אלא כי הא דתניא נשבית לאחר מיתת בעלה אין היתומין חייבין לפדותה ולא עוד אלא אפילו נשבית בחיי בעלה ואחר כך מת בעלה אין היתומין חייבין לפדותה שאין אני קורא בה ואותבינך לאינתו
Levi thought to act in accordance with this baraita. Rav said to him, Thus said Havivi [my uncle]: The law is not in accordance with that baraita but with the following teaching: [If a woman] was taken captive after the death of her husband the orphans are not obligated to redeem her, and, furthermore, even if she was taken captive during the lifetime of her husband, and then he died, the orphans are not obligated to redeem her, since one cannot apply to her [the clause in her kehubah:] “And I will restore you as my wife.”
תנו רבנן נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנו עד עשרה בדמיה פעם ראשונה פודה מכאן ואילך רצה פודה רצה אינו פודה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר
Our rabbis taught: [If a woman] was taken captive and they demanded that her husband pay ten times her value, he must redeem her the first time. Subsequently, if he wants he may redeem her, but if he does not want, he need not redeem her. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says:.