אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶם, מִפְּנֵי תִּקוּן הָעוֹלָם. הָא בִּכְדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן – פּוֹדִין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּפִרְקוֹנָהּ יוֹתֵר עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ.

One does not redeem captives at more than their value. This policy is for the betterment of the world, because if captives are ransomed at exorbitant prices, this will encourage their captors to kidnap more people. The Gemara notes: This implies that if the captors seek a ransom in accordance with their actual value one does redeem captives, even though this includes a case where a woman’s redemption is more than her marriage contract.

וּרְמִינְהִי: נִשְׁבֵּית, וְהָיוּ מְבַקְּשִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה – פּוֹדֶה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ רָצָה – פּוֹדֶה, רָצָה – אֵינוֹ פּוֹדֶה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה פִּרְקוֹנָהּ כְּנֶגֶד כְּתוּבָּתָהּ – פּוֹדֶה, אִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ פּוֹדֶה!

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita , which states: If she was taken captive and the captors were seeking from her husband a ransom of up to ten times the value of her marriage contract, on the first occasion he must redeem her. From this point forward, if he wants to he redeems her, but if he does not want to redeem her, he does not have to redeem her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the price of her ransom was equal to her marriage contract he redeems her. If not, i.e., the price of her ransom was greater than the sum of money guaranteed to her in her marriage contract upon divorce or the death of her husband, he does not have to redeem her. He can suffice with paying her marriage contract.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל תְּרֵי קוּלֵּי אִית לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is of the opinion that there are two leniencies with regard to the halakhot of redemption. First, he maintains that one does not pay more than the general ransom given for such a captive, and second, a husband does not have to pay more than the sum of his wife’s marriage contract.

״לָקְתָה חַיָּיב לְרַפְּאוֹתָהּ״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַלְמָנָה נִיזּוֹנֶת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין, וּצְרִיכָה רְפוּאָה – הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְזוֹנוֹת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: רְפוּאָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קִצְבָּה – נִתְרַפֵּאת מִכְּתוּבָּתָהּ, שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קִצְבָּה – הֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְזוֹנוֹת.

§ The mishna taught (51a) that if a woman was struck with illness, her husband is obligated to heal her, i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. The Sages taught in a baraita : In the case of a widow who is sustained from the property of the orphans and who requires medical treatment, her medical needs are like her sustenance, and the orphans must bear the costs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: With regard to treatment that has a fixed cost, she is healed from her marriage contract, i.e., the amount is subtracted from her marriage contract. If it is a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, it is considered like sustenance.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עָשׂוּ הַקָּזַת דָּם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּרְפוּאָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קִצְבָּה. קְרֵיבֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲוָה לְהוּ אִיתַּת אַבָּא דַּהֲוַת צְרִיכָה רְפוּאָה כָּל יוֹמָא. אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֵיזִילוּ קוֹצוּ לֵיהּ מִידֵי לְרוֹפֵא.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Sages established that in Eretz Yisrael, bloodletting is considered like a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, and therefore the heirs must pay for that treatment. The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoḥanan had to take care of the wife of their father, who required treatment every day, and therefore her medical expenses were high. They came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask him what to do. He said to them: Go and fix a lump sum with the doctor for his services. The treatment would then be considered as having a fixed cost, which is deducted from the marriage contract.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עָשִׂינוּ עַצְמֵינוּ כְּעוֹרְכֵי הַדַּיָּינִין. מֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי סָבַר וּלְבַסּוֹף מַאי סָבַר? מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבַר ״וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם״ וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבַר: אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי.

Later Rabbi Yoḥanan said in regret: We have made ourselves like legal advisors, who help people with their legal claims. The Gemara asks: At the outset, what did he hold and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara explains: At the outset he held that one should act in accordance with the verse “and that you do not hide yourself from your own flesh” (Isaiah 58:7), which indicates that one must help his relatives. And ultimately he held that an important person is different. If a man of stature offers assistance to his family in a manner that causes a loss to another individual, it appears as though he were unfairly favoring his relatives.

מתני׳ לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ ״בְּנִין דִּכְרִין דְּיֶהֱווּ לֵיכִי מִינַּאי אִינּוּן יִרְתּוּן כֶּסֶף כְּתוּבָּתֵיךְ יָתֵר עַל חוּלַקְהוֹן דְּעִם אֲחוּהוֹן״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. בְּנָן נוּקְבָן דְּיֶהֱוְיָן לֵיכִי מִינַּאי יֶהֱוְיָן יָתְבָן בְּבֵיתִי וּמִיתְזְנָן מִנְּכָסַי עַד דְּתִלָּקְחוּן לְגוּבְרִין״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין.

If the husband did not write for her in her marriage contract: Any male children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portion of the inheritance that they receive together with their brothers, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court and therefore takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. Likewise, if he omitted from the marriage contract the sentence: Any female children you will have from me will sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men, i.e., until they are married, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it too is a stipulation of the court.

״אַתְּ תְּהֵא יָתְבָא בְּבֵיתִי וּמִיתְזְנָא מִנְּכָסַי כָּל יְמֵי מֵיגָר אַלְמָנוּתֵיךְ בְּבֵיתִי״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. כָּךְ הָיוּ אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם כּוֹתְבִין. אַנְשֵׁי גָּלִיל הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין כְּאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. אַנְשֵׁי יְהוּדָה הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין: עַד שֶׁיִּרְצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין לִיתֵּן לָךְ כְּתוּבָּתֵיךְ. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם רָצוּ יוֹרְשִׁין – נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, וּפוֹטְרִין אוֹתָהּ.

Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner, that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and the residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her, and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה הִתְקִינוּ כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין – כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְפּוֹץ אָדָם וְיִכְתּוֹב לְבִתּוֹ כִּבְנוֹ.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: For what reason did the Sages enact the marriage document concerning male children? It was enacted so that a man will be willing to take the initiative and write an agreement to give his daughter a dowry as large as the portion of his possessions that his son will receive as an inheritance. The marriage document concerning male children ensures that even if one’s daughter dies and her husband inherits her possessions, the dowry will eventually be inherited by her sons when her husband dies. Since the father of the bride knows that his grandchildren will inherit the dowry, he will give a larger dowry.

וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵי דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר בְּרָא – לֵירוּת, בְּרַתָּא – לָא תֵּירוּת, וַאֲתוּ רַבָּנַן וּמְתַקְּנֵי דְּתֵירוּת בְּרַתָּא?

The Gemara asks: And is there anything that justifies a situation where the Merciful One says that the son inherits and the daughter does not inherit, and yet the Sages came and enacted that the daughter should inherit? The practical effect of their decree is that daughters receive a significant portion of their father’s estate, just like sons.

הָא נַמִי דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״קְחוּ נָשִׁים וְהוֹלִידוּ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת וּקְחוּ לִבְנֵיכֶם נָשִׁים וְאֶת בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם תְּנוּ לַאֲנָשִׁים״. בִּשְׁלָמָא בָּנִים – בִּידֵיהּ קַיְימֵי, אֶלָּא בְּנָתֵיהּ מִי קַיְימָן בִּידֵיהּ?

The Gemara answers: This also applies by Torah law, as it is written: “Take wives for yourselves and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands” (Jeremiah 29:6). This verse requires clarification. Granted, sons are in his hands, i.e., a father can select wives for them, but daughters, are they in his power that he can select husbands for them? It is not the manner of a woman or her family to court a man.

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: דְּנַלְבְּשָׁהּ, וְנִיכְסָהּ, וְנֵיתִיב לָהּ מִידֵי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּקָפְצֵי עֲלָהּ וַאֲתוּ נָסְבִי לָהּ. וְעַד כַּמָּה? אַבַּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: עַד לְעִישּׂוּר נִכְסֵי.

Rather, the verse teaches us this, that the father should dress her and cover her and give her something, i.e., property, so that men will take the initiative with her and come to marry her. When the verse instructs fathers to marry off their daughters, it means that they must make efforts to ensure this outcome, including bestowing a dowry. The Gemara asks: And up to how much must a father give his daughters? Abaye and Rava both say: Up to one-tenth of one’s property should be handed over to his daughter for her dowry.

וְאֵימָא, דְּאָב – לֵירוּת, דְּבַעַל – לָא לֵירוּת! אִם כֵּן אָב נַמִי מִימְנָע וְלָא כָּתַב.

The Gemara asks: But if this is the reason for the institution of the marriage document concerning male children, say that it is only the portion the bride’s father gave as a dowry that her sons should inherit, but the money the husband guarantees to pay his wife, they should not inherit. The Gemara answers: If so, the bride’s father will also refrain from writing a large dowry. If his daughter’s sons will not inherit the husband’s portion of the marriage contract, her father will be reluctant to give generously himself.

וְאֵימָא הֵיכָא דְּכָתַב אָב – לִכְתּוֹב בַּעַל, הֵיכָא דְּלָא כָּתַב אָב – לָא לִכְתּוֹב בַּעַל! לָא פְּלוּג רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara continues to ask: But if the concern is that the father will not give, say that in a case where the father wrote a large dowry for his daughter, let the husband also write the stipulation in the marriage document concerning male children, and when the father did not write a large dowry, let the husband not write this stipulation. The Gemara replies: The Sages did not distinguish between these cases. Although the main purpose of their enactment was to encourage fathers to provide their daughters with generous dowries, the Sages applied their decree equally to all women, even when the father failed to do so.

בַּת בֵּין הַבָּנִים נַמִי תֵּירוּת! כְּנַחֲלָה שָׁוְיוּהָ רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara poses another question: If the aim is to ensure that the money of the marriage contract will remain with the woman’s descendants, in a case when one has a daughter from one woman among his sons from another woman, the daughter should likewise inherit her mother’s dowry. Why do only male children inherit their mother’s dowry? The Gemara responds: The Sages established this enactment as similar to the halakha of inheritance: Just as a regular inheritance belongs to sons and not daughters, the same applies to the marriage document concerning male children.

בַּת בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת תֵּירוּת! לָא פְּלוּג רַבָּנַן. וְתִיגְבֵּי מִמִּטַּלְטְלֵי! כִּכְתוּבָּה שָׁוְיוּהָ רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara continues to inquire: Why shouldn’t one at least say that a daughter among daughters should inherit? If he had a daughter from this wife, and his other children are also daughters, in which case all the daughters divide the inheritance, the daughters of each wife should receive the portion her maternal grandfather gave to her mother. The Gemara again answers: The Sages did not distinguish between these cases when establishing their decree. The Gemara further asks: And let the marriage document concerning male children be collected even from movable property, if that is all the father possesses. The Gemara replies: The Sages established this enactment as similar to a regular marriage contract, which can be collected only from land.

תִּטְרוֹף מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדֵי! ״יִרְתּוּן״ תְּנַן. וְאֵימָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא מוֹתַר דִּינָר! בְּמָקוֹם דְּקָא מִיעַקְרָא נַחֲלָה דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא – לָא תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara poses yet another question: Let it be collected even from liened property, i.e., property the father sold after he wrote the marriage contract. The Gemara answers that we learned in the mishna: Will inherit, and one’s heirs do not inherit property that he has sold. The Gemara asks: But if this is the reason for this enactment, say that it should apply even though there is no more than a dinar beyond the value of the marriage contract that the father left over in his estate. The Sages stated that if no property is left for the inheritance, all the sons share the inheritance equally, in accordance with Torah law. The Gemara answers: In a case where their decree would entirely uproot the halakha of inheritance by Torah law, the Sages did not enact the marriage document concerning male children.

רַב פַּפָּא אִיעֲסַק לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ בֵּי אַבָּא סוּרָאָה, אָזֵיל לְמִיכְתַּב לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. שָׁמַע יְהוּדָה בַּר מָרֵימָר, נָפַק אֲתָא אִיתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ. כִּי מָטוּ לְפִיתְחָא הֲוָה קָא מִפַּטַּר מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֵיעוּל מָר בַּהֲדַאי!

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, having arranged for his son to marry into the family of Abba of Sura, went to supervise the writing of the bride’s marriage contract. Yehuda bar Mareimar heard that Rav Pappa was coming, and came out to present himself before him, in honor of his arrival. When they came to the entrance of Abba of Sura’s house, Yehuda bar Mareimar took his leave of him, as he did not wish to enter. Rav Pappa said to him: Let the Master enter inside with me.