Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11.7

משנה: הַיְּתוֹמָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה וְהָאַיְילוֹנִית אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה וְלֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת. וְאִם מִתְּחִילָּה נְשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם אַיְילוֹנִית יֵשׁ לָהּ כְתוּבָּה. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה.

MISHNAH: Neither the orphan, nor the secondarily prohibited, nor the she-ram may claim ketubah, or usufruct, or sustenance, or depreciation. But if he married her from the start as a she-ram, she has claim to her ketubah. A widow [married] to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah to a common priest, a bastard or Gibeonite girl to an Israel, an Israel girl married to a bastard or Gibeonite, have claim to ketubah.

הלכה: הַיְּתוֹמָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה וְהָאַיְילוֹנִית כול׳. נִיחָא שְׁנִיָיה אַיְילוֹנִית. יְתוֹמָה. וִיתוֹמָה אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תִּיפְתָּר בִּיתוֹמָה שֶׁמֵּיאֵינָה. רִבִּי אַייבוֹ בַּר נַגָּרִי רִבִּי אִימִי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקָּנְסוּ בָהּ כָּךְ קָנְסוּ בוֹ. לֵיי דֶא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָהּ בְּלִיטְרָא שֶׁלְּזָהָב שֶׁהוּא מְאַבֵּד אֶת הַכֹּל.

HALAKHAH: “Neither the orphan girl, nor the secondarily prohibited, nor the she-ram,” etc. One understands the secondarily prohibited and the she-ram. The orphan? Does an orphan not have ketubah? Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi J̣oḥanan: Explain it for an orphan who repudiated. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari, Rebbi Immi: Just as they fined her, so they fined him. In which respect? That if he preliminarily married her by [giving her] a pound of gold, he loses it all.

וְלֹא פֵירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. שֶׁאֵין לֹו עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת בִּלְבַד. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צַיְדָנִיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וּפַלִּיג עַל רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְזַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבְהֵפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ. מַהוּ לֹא פֵירוֹת. שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת שֶׁאָכַל.

“No usufruct.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, that he has from her only the usufruct. Rebbi Yose the Sidonian stated before Rebbi Jeremiah, in disgreement with Rebbi Jeremiah: “He has the right to what she finds and earns, and to dissolve her vows.” What means “no usufruct”? That she cannot reclaim from him the usufruct he had [from her property].

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּכָל שָׁעָה הַוָה רִבִּי הִילָא רִבִּי אָמַר לִי. תְּנִי מַתְנִיתָךְ. יוֹרְשָׁהּ וּמִיטַמֵּא לָהּ. וְתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא כֵן. מְטַמֵּא הוּא אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כְשֵׁירָה. וְאִינוֹ מִיטַמֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ פְסוּלָה.

Rebbi Yose said: All the time my teacher Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.

רִבִּי רְאוּבֶן בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. עַבְדֵי שְׁנִייוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שְׁתוֹק וְיָפֶה לָךְ. הִיא אוֹכֶלֶת וַעֲבָדֶיהָ אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין.

Rebbi Reuben asked before Rebbi Mana: May the slaves of a secondarily forbidden [wife] eat heave? He said to him, be quiet, it is better for you. She eats but her slaves do not eat.

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. גֵּט הַמְעוּשֶּׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּשֵׁר וּבַגּוֹיִם פָּסוּל. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל בִּכְהוּנָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין מְעַשִּׂין אֶלָּא כְגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. שְׁנִיּוֹת. לָא בְגִין דָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הַמַדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּיהֲנוֹת לוֹ. עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא. שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין.

There, we have stated: “A forced bill of divorce is valid in Israel; it is invalid from Gentiles.” Samuel said, it is invalid and disqualifies for the priesthood. Samuel said, one does not force, only disqualify. Samuel said, one does not force except for example a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or one freed by ḥalîṣah for a simple priest. But did we not state: “Secondarily forbidden”? Did he not say “for example”? But did we not state: “A person who by a vow forbids his wife to have any usufruct from him, up to 30 days he shall appoint a caretaker; after 30 days he shall divorce her and pay ketubah”! We heard that he shall divorce; did we hear that one forces him?

מַה בֵין אֵילּוּ לָאֵילּוּ. אֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק. לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין וְדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. אֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקְּנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בָהֶן דָּבָר אַחֵר. לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין קְנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד וְקָנְסוּ בָהֶן דָּבָר אַחֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּיסֵית. מָאן דָּמַר. אֵילּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא דְבַר תּוֹרָה לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֵיּלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקְּנָסָן בְּיָדָן וּבְיַד הַוְולָד. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין קְנָסָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וּבְיַד הַוְולָד לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה.

What is the difference between these and those? Since these are words of the Torah and the words of the Torah [do not] need support, therefore they have ketubah. Those, because they are words of the Sopherim and the words of the Sopherim need support, therefore they do not have ketubah. Some want to say since these are punished together with the child, they did not fine them, therefore they have ketubah. Those, since they are not punished together with the child, they fined them, therefore they do not have ketubah. What is the difference between them? He who remarried his divorced wife after she had remarried. For him who says since these are words of the Torah, and this case is a word of the Torah, therefore she has ketubah. For him who says since these are punished together with the child, this one, since neither she nor the child is punished, therefore, she has no ketubah.

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי הִילָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת פְּלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. הוֹצִיא. וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵן. הוּא בָּעֵי מֵימַר. מָאן דָּמַר. בִּתְנַאי כְּתוּבָּה פְלִיגִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יֵשׁ לָהּ תְּנַאי כְתוּבָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. בְּיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ קָנְסוּ. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בָּהּ. מָאן דָּמַר. פְּלִיגִין. בִּמְזוֹנוֹת. הָא בִּתְנַאי כְתוּבָּה לא. בָּהּ קָנְסוּ. לֹא קָנְסוּ בְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila say that they differ about sustenance. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may demand sustenance. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, one says to him, divorce her! And you say so? They wanted to say, for him who says they differ about the conditions attached to a ketubah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, she has the ketubah stipulations. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, everybody agrees that she cannot claim support since they even punished her heirs, so much more herself. But for him who says that they differ about sustenance, it follows that they do not differ about the stipulations of a ketubah. They fined her, but did not fine her heirs.