Today's שיעור will be מסכתא בבא קמא דף פ"ט, and we'll start two lines from the bottom of דף פ"ח עמוד ב'. The גמרא here just mentioned תקנת אושא, that in the city of אושא, the חכמים made a תקנה that if a woman sells her נכסי מלוג, meaning things that belong to her, but while she is married to her husband, her husband is the one that eats the פירות, meaning he gets any benefit, any profit that comes from her possessions goes to him, but the possessions themselves belong to the wife. So מצד הדין, if she would sell it, then it would belong to the buyer, because after all, she owns it. But the חכמים made a תקנה in אושא, that if a woman sells from her נכסי מלוג and she dies, her husband is able to go to the לקוחות and take them back, because the חכמים made the ownership of the husband over these possessions very strong, that she has no right to sell them. And if she

did sell them, then the sale is not valid and the husband is able to take them back. So the גמרא says, אמר רבי דימי בר אבין, רבי דימי בר אבין said, אף אנן נמי תנינא, we also learn in a ברייתא that proves this תקנה of אושא. Says, מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שגירש את אשתו, if two witnesses come and testify that we testify that this person divorced his wife, ונתן כתובתה, and he also paid her the כתובה, and לפועל they were lying, והרי היא תחתיו, she's still under him, meaning she's still married to him, ומשמשתו, she serves him, she's still taking care of him, he didn't divorce her and definitely he didn't give her the כתובה. And not only were they found to be liars, but the way they were found to be liars was ונמצאו זוממין, that they were found to be עדים זוממין. And the דין is that when you find עדים to be זוממין, you have to do to them what they wanted to do to the other. Here, they wanted this woman to lose her כתובה because they claimed that she already received her כתובה, and really they were lying. So now what would we assume should be done to them? They have to pay her the amount they wanted her to lose, meaning they would have to pay her the whole כתובה. So we say, אין אומרים, we do not say, ישלמו כל כתובתה, that they should pay her the whole כתובה, אלא טובת הנאה דכתובה, they only pay the טובת הנאה of the כתובה. Only the satisfaction of the benefit of the כתובה. They don't have to pay for the whole כתובה because actually they didn't make her lose the כתובה. Because how do we know בכלל that she's ever going to get the כתובה that we're able to say that through their testimony they wanted to make her lose the כתובה? The דין by a כתובה is that if her husband divorces with her or her husband dies, that's when she receives the כתובה. But if she dies before her husband, then she doesn't get the כתובה at all. So therefore, we don't know בכלל whether this woman would definitely eventually get her כתובה that we should be able to say that they made her lose the כתובה. If there would be other witnesses here that would say that she was divorced and she did not receive the כתובה, and these witnesses said that she did receive the כתובה, so then they actually wanted her to lose the כתובה, because she definitely deserves the כתובה, because she was divorced as the other witnesses testify, and they wanted to say that she got her כתובה already, so they wanted her definitely to lose the כתובה. So then, definitely they would have to pay the full amount of כתובה because that's what they wanted her to lose. But in a case where we don't know whether they actually made her lose the כתובה, because maybe she will never get the כתובה anyway, because maybe she will die before her husband, so she will never receive the כתובה לכתחילה. So we can't say that the witnesses should pay the full amount of the כתובה. So what we say is they only pay the טובת הנאה of the כתובה, meaning how much the כתובה is worth to her at this moment. Now,

how do we know how much it's worth to her now? So the גמרא says, איזו היא טובת הנאה? What is considered טובת הנאה, the satisfaction of the benefit of the כתובה? That is through אומדין we estimate כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בכתובתה של זו, how much would a person be willing to pay for her כתובה שאם נתאלמנה או נתגרשה, that just in case she will become a widow or she will be divorced, then her כתובה will be worth something. On the other hand, it's a risk because ואם מתה, if she dies first, ירשנה בעלה, her husband will inherit her and there will be no כתובה given to her. In other words, if a person would buy her כתובה now, he would be taking a risk. Maybe this כתובה would mature, and that person would collect the whole amount, since he will buy the כתובה from her, so he takes her place. So when the moment comes, when the כתובה matures, meaning that she should have gotten the כתובה, so instead of her getting it, that person would get it. And that would be only if her husband divorces her, or if her husband dies, so then the יורשים would have to pay the כתובה. So in that side, it would be worth for a person to buy the כתובה. On the other hand, he's taking a risk. What happens if she dies first? Then her husband will inherit her, and automatically, the כתובה will be nullified, and the husband doesn't have to pay anything. So then the one that buys the כתובה before will lose the whole amount of money. So he's taking a risk. So if a woman is willing to sell her כתובה, definitely she will not get for it the full amount of money that it says in the כתובה. But she could sell it for a much lower price, because a person would be willing to take the risk and maybe make some money. So therefore the דין that we make these עדים זוממים pay to the woman the amount of money that the כתובה is worth right now. Since they wanted her to lose the כתובה, they claimed that she already received the כתובה, so they wanted her to lose the כתובה. On the other hand, it's a ספק whether they really made her lose the כתובה or not. So therefore, they only pay the amount of money that the כתובה is worth now based on that ספק. There is a value in the כתובה, how much she could sell it for based on that ספק. So that's how much the עדים זוממים would have to pay her. But the expression, the way it's said in the ברייתא was, that the risk is that she might become a widow or a divorcee, and therefore, the כתובה would be worth something. On the other hand, maybe she will die first, then her husband will inherit her, and the person who bought the כתובה would not get anything. And it has to be made clear that when we talk here about the כתובה, we don't only mean the money that the husband will owe to the wife because of the כתובה, meaning the $200 that he wrote for a בתולה, or the $100 that he's supposed to write for an אלמנה. We're talking about all the possessions that she also brought into the marriage, because in the כתובה they used to write that this and this woman brought into the marriage a certain amount of property, that when she is divorced, or if her husband dies, it all goes back to her. When she sells the כתובה, she sells everything. She sells the amount of money that the husband promised to give her for the כתובה, plus she sells everything that's mentioned there, that if her husband divorces her, or her husband dies, so then instead of her getting all the possessions back, these possessions would go to the buyer of the כתובה. And that's what the ברייתא means, that the risk is that what happens if she dies first? So then her husband will inherit her, so not only will her husband not have to pay the money that he promised for the כתובה, but her husband will also take all the possessions, all the property that she brought in into the marriage, and the one that bought the כתובה would not get anything. Now we

say, אי סלקא דעתך, if we're going to think that ליתא לתקנת אושא, that we do not accept the תקנה of אושא, where they said that if a woman sells from her properties in the lifetime of her husband, and then she dies, her husband can go back to the לקוחות and take it away, if we do not accept that, and we say that the husband cannot take away from the לקוחות, so then אמאי ירשנה בעלה? Why do we say if she dies, her husband would inherit her? תזבין לכתובתה לגמרי, let her sell her כתובה completely, so then her husband would not be able to go to the לקוחות and take it away. And therefore, the one that buys the כתובה is not really taking a risk, because even if the wife will die first, nevertheless, the husband will have no right to take away her possessions that she sold to him that were mentioned in the כתובה. So whatever happens, he gets those properties that belonged to the wife before. So why do we say that a person would pay less because he is taking a risk? He is not taking any risk, because the sale is valid, and even if she dies first, he gets her possessions that she sold to him. And since we say that we are afraid that if she dies first, then her husband will ירש her, that obviously shows that even if she sells her possessions, after she dies, the husband is able to go to the לקוחות, to the buyer, and take the possessions away. So here we see that we do accept the תקנה of אושא. אמר אביי, but אביי said, it's no ראיה that we accept the תקנה of אושא. Maybe באמת we don't accept the תקנה of אושא, and therefore, a woman if she sells from her נכסי מלוג, the husband later on cannot come and take it away from the buyer. And nevertheless, we consider it a risk because even if we don't accept the תקנה of אושא, and therefore, the husband cannot take it away, but that only would apply to נכסי מלוג. אי אמרו בנכסי מלוג, יאמרו בנכסי צאן ברזל? That if they said this concerning נכסי מלוג, does that mean that the same thing would apply to נכסי צאן ברזל? Concerning נכסי צאן ברזל, even not because of תקנת אושא, the husband could still go to the לקוחות and take it away, because על פי דין she had no right to sell. Now the

difference between נכסי מלוג and נכסי צאן ברזל is, that when a woman brings property into the marriage, they could be or in the category of נכסי מלוג or נכסי צאן ברזל. In both of these cases, the husband would only eat the fruit, meaning he would only get the profits, and if he divorces her or he dies, the things would go back to her, but it depends how it would go back to her. Those things that were in the category of נכסי מלוג would go back to her as it is at the time when it goes back to her. Whether it depreciated from the time she brought it into the marriage or it went up in value, it goes back to her as it is at the time when she gets it back. But if it was brought in in the category of נכסי צאן ברזל, צאן ברזל means metal cattle. Just like metal doesn't change, so too this is something that doesn't change, that when it goes back to her, it goes back to her in the same way it was when she brought it. Whether it depreciated or it went up in value makes no difference to her. You give it back to her based on the value it had when she brought it in. And that's why it's called נכסי צאן ברזל, it's like metal cattle. That just like if she would have brought in something that is very strong and doesn't change, she would get it back the same as she brought it in, so too with these properties, these possessions, she gets it back as it was when she brought it in. And essentially, the difference between נכסי מלוג and נכסי צאן ברזל is, that by נכסי מלוג we consider it the whole time as if it's hers. Even though the husband eats the fruit, meaning he takes the profits, but nevertheless it is still hers. And therefore, if there is a loss, she is the one that suffers the loss. If there is a gain, she is the one that gets the gain. And therefore, the דין is that when she gets it back, she gets it back as it is at the time when she gets it back, because really she's not getting it back, the whole time it was really hers, and whatever happens to it during the whole time, it's as if it happened to her object. But concerning נכסי צאן ברזל, it's as if we say that when she brings it in, she gives it away to her husband. Her husband is responsible for what he got, but it is not that it is the whole time in her possession. And therefore, if there was a loss or there was a gain, it wasn't that she lost it or that she gained, because it wasn't in her possession at that time. And therefore, when the time comes for the husband to give it back, he has to give it back as it was at the time when he received it, because when he receives it, he gets something from her, so she knows that he got from her something which has a certain value, and then it's in his רשות now, and whatever happens to it is in his רשות, and therefore when he gives it back, he has to give it back to her in the same value as it was when he got it. So it comes out that נכסי מלוג is considered the whole time as if it's hers, נכסי צאן ברזל is considered the whole time as if it's the possession of the husband. So even if not for the תקנת אושא, and therefore concerning נכסי מלוג we would say that if she sold it, the sale is valid, and the husband cannot go and take it away from the לקוחות, because it was hers thing that she sold, but definitely concerning נכסי צאן ברזל, she can't do it, because נכסי צאן ברזל after it goes under the רשות of the husband, it's out of her possession completely. It's as if she gave it away to the husband completely, he just has a responsibility that eventually, if the conditions will fit, he will have to pay her back, but at the time it is the husband's, and therefore she had no right to sell it. So therefore, if she did sell it, the husband could go to the לקוחות and take it back. So therefore, if a person buys the כתובה from a woman in the lifetime of her husband, so he is taking a risk, even if not for the תקנת אושא, because even though concerning the נכסי מלוג the husband will not be able to take it back if she dies first, but the נכסי צאן ברזל definitely the husband will take back, will not allow him, the לוקח, to keep, so therefore he is taking a risk. And therefore, there is only a טובת הנאה he would pay. And therefore, it says in the ברייתא, that when a person buys a כתובה, he takes a risk, that maybe she will die first and the husband would ירש her, even if not for the תקנת אושא, there is still a risk involved, because the נכסי צאן ברזל definitely the husband would ירש, and therefore it is a risk for the buyer. Then the גמרא says, אמר אביי, אביי said, טובת הנאה, הואיל ואתא לידן, since it came to us, that we already discussed the concept of טובת הנאה, which is the value of the כתובה during the lifetime of the husband, Since we already spoke about that, נימא בה מילתא, let us say something about it. Let me say a דין concerning the טובת הנאה. That what? That טובת הנאה לאשה הוי. The טובת הנאה goes to the wife. In other words, if a woman does sell her כתובה, and she gets that טובת הנאה, so that stays with her, and the husband does not take it. Even though concerning all possessions that a woman has, we know the דין is that it goes to the husband, that he eats the fruit, takes the profit that comes from that possession, but the טובת הנאה that she gets for her כתובה will not be given to the husband, that stays with her completely.

אי סלקא דעתך דבעל הוי, because if you would think the טובת הנאה has to go to the husband too, לימרו לה עדים, let the witnesses that became זוממין say to her, מאי אפסדינך, what did we make you lose? And we said before they made her lose the value of the כתובה as it's now, which means the טובת הנאה of the כתובה, but they could say to her, we didn't even make you lose that either, because אי הוות מזבנת לה בטובת הנאה, even if you would have sold your כתובה for the טובת הנאה, בעל הוה שקיל מינך, your husband would have taken it from you. So you wouldn't have had it anyway. So there is no loss to you at all that we tried to give, and therefore they shouldn't have to pay anything. And since the ברייתא says that the עדים do have to pay her the טובת הנאה because that is a loss they wanted to cause, because this כתובה at that point has that value, and according to their testimony that the כתובה was given already, she couldn't have sold it for that טובת הנאה, so she lost that טובת הנאה, therefore they have to pay her that טובת הנאה. So that proves that if she would have sold it, she would have kept that money, and that money wouldn't have gone to her husband. Because if it would have gone to her husband, then they could say, we didn't make you lose anything. רב שלמן אמר, so

רב שלמן said, משום דאיכא רווח ביתא, that באמת it's no ראיה, could be that the money does go to the husband, and still they cannot say to her that we didn't make you lose anything because you would have to give the money to your husband. She could say, it is considered a loss to me, because I want the house to be comfortable, and by me selling the כתובה and having the money and giving it to my husband, my husband will be able to provide for my needs easier because he will have more money. The house will be more comfortable because there will be more money in the house. So therefore it is considered a loss to the wife, and therefore there is no ראיה that the טובת הנאה does not go to the husband, but stays with her. Then the גמרא says, אמר רבא, רבא said, הלכתא טובת הנאה לאשה, that the הלכה is that the טובת הנאה goes to the wife, ואין הבעל אוכל פירות, and the husband does not eat the fruit, he does not get it for the profit that it brings. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? Because פירא תקינו ליה רבנן, the רבנן were מתקן that a husband eat the fruit, meaning get the profit from her possession, but פירא דפירא לא תקינו ליה רבנן, the fruit of the fruit the חכמים were not מתקן. And therefore, to say that a husband should get her טובת הנאה, the טובת הנאה itself is a profit that she brought in. Now, he should get the profit from that profit, that the חכמים were not מתקן. And as תוספות explains, it only means in a case where it came in from the outside. But the fruit of the fruit that comes directly from her possession, that a husband does get. For instance, if she owns cattle, and the cattle give birth to calves, so these calves belong to the husband, because they are the profit that her possessions brought in. Now, the children of those calves would also belong to the husband. And we do not say that since they are פירא of פירא, they are profit of profit, so that should not go to the husband, because there it came directly from her possessions. The only thing is that when it comes from the outside, that's when we say פירא דפירא is not for the husband. For instance, in a case like here where it comes from the outside, the money that she makes for selling her כתובה, or another case that the גמרא says in כתובות דף ע״ט, where it says that if someone stole a בהמה that belongs to her, that was from her נכסי מלוג, so the גנב has to pay כפל, the גנב has to pay double, that כפל goes to the wife, not to the husband. And the reason is because it is פירא דפירא. So there, too, it is because it comes from the outside. But if it would come directly from the פירא that came directly from her possessions, so then the דין would be that it would go to the husband. Then the גמרא continues, כי

אתא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב, when רב פפא and רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע came from the ישיבה, אמרו, they said, תנינא לתקנת אושא, באמת we learn in the משנה the תקנת אושא. We have a ראיה from the משנה that there is such a thing as תקנת אושא. Because it says in the משנה, העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה, a goyish slave or a woman, it is bad if you meet up with them. Why? Because החובל בהם חייב, if someone injures them, you have to pay, והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין, but if they injured others, they are פטור. And the reason they are פטור is because they don't own anything. Anything that a עבד or an אשה owns belongs to the master or to the husband, and therefore they can't pay because they have no money from which to pay. Now the question is, ואי סלקא דעתך לית ליה לתקנת אושא, if you're going to say that there is no תקנת אושא, so then how could we say that a woman doesn't have anything to pay from? תזבין נכסי מלוג, let her sell her נכסי מלוג, ותתן ליה, to give him, let her pay for the injury that she caused through her נכסי מלוג. If we accept תקנת אושא, then we understand why she has no money to pay, because her נכסי מלוג she cannot sell, because even if she does, her husband could go to the לקוחות later on and take it back. But if we would not have the תקנת אושא, which would mean that if she sells her נכסי מלוג the sale is valid, so why doesn't she sell the נכסי מלוג and pay for the injury that she caused? And since we say that she doesn't have to pay, obviously, we do accept תקנת אושא. They said to him, ולטעמיך, and according to you that you hold that there is a תקנת אושא, it's still not understood. נהי נמי דאית ליה תקנת אושא, even though there is such a תקנת אושא, ולא מצי מזבנא לגמרי, and she cannot sell her נכסי מלוג completely, but תזבין לנכסי מלוג בטובת הנאה, let her sell the נכסי מלוג with the טובת הנאה, ותתן ליה and pay for it. לכאורה, she still has some money, even with the תקנת אושא. Let her sell her נכסי מלוג, and there is a risk the person will take when he buys it. If she

dies first, then he won't get anything, the husband will take it back. If he dies first, then the buyer will keep it. So there's a risk he is taking, but nevertheless, maybe he will gain. So a person would pay some money for her נכסי מלוג based on the risk. So why doesn't she sell her נכסי מלוג for the טובת הנאה at least, so some money she could get for her נכסי מלוג, and why doesn't she do that and pay for the injury? אלא, we must say, why don't we say that? דלית לה, it's in the case where she doesn't have that when it's bad to meet up with her, when she has no נכסי מלוג. Then there is no way she could pay. הכא נמי, so too, if there is no תקנת אושא, you could say דלית לה, that she doesn't have. So you have no ראיה that there is a תקנת אושא, because otherwise, why can't she sell נכסי מלוג? Because we must say it's speaking in a case where she has no נכסי מלוג. But then the גמרא asks, even if she has no נכסי מלוג, ותזבין כתובתה בטובת הנאה ותתן ליה, let her sell the כתובה itself, not the נכסי מלוג, but the כתובה where it says that the husband promises to give her the $200 or the $100, whatever it was, if he divorces her, or if he dies, and that has a טובת הנאה right now too. A person would buy it and pay a certain amount for it, taking the risk that maybe he will get the full amount if the husband dies or divorces her. So why can't she sell her כתובה? And the question is back. Why do we say that a woman is פטור from paying because she has no money? No matter what, she always is able to raise some money. She's always able to sell her כתובה בטובת הנאה. So why don't we say that a woman who caused an injury to a person has to sell her כתובה, and the money she gets will go towards the injury? But the גמרא says she can't do it because הא מני, this goes according to who? רבי מאיר, it goes according to רבי מאיר, דאמר, that says, אסור לאדם שישהא את אשתו אפילו שעה אחת בלא כתובה, a person is not allowed to stay with his wife even for one moment without a כתובה. So

how can we say she should sell a כתובה? As soon as she sells her כתובה, she's not allowed to stay with her husband, and therefore she's not allowed to sell her כתובה. But the גמרא asks, why not? טעמא מאי? What is the reason? Why is a person not allowed to stay with his wife without a כתובה even for a moment? כדי שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה, in order for him not to be easy for him to divorce her. A person knows that he could divorce his wife and it won't cost him anything, so anytime he will get angry at her, he will throw her a גט and divorce her. So חכמים said that in order to make it hard on him, if he knows that when he divorces his wife he has to pay her a certain amount of money, then he won't divorce her so fast. So that is the reason why a person is not allowed to live with his wife without a כתובה. But if so, הכא לא מגרש לה, in this case, when she sells her כתובה to somebody else, he still won't divorce her. It's still going to be just as hard for him to divorce her, because דאי מגרש לה, if he divorces her, אתו הנך דזבנה, so the people who bought the כתובה will come, גבו לכתובתה, and they will take the כתובה. What difference is it whether he will have to pay to her the כתובה if he divorces her, or will have to pay to the one that bought the כתובה from her? In both cases, it'll cost the husband money if he divorces her. So therefore, if a woman sells her כתובה, the דין should be that the husband is allowed to live with her even though she doesn't have the כתובה, because the reason why she must have a כתובה still exists. The reason was so it should cost him money if he'll divorce her. In this case, it'll also cost him money, because if he divorces her, the person who bought the כתובה will come to the husband and collect the money. אלא, therefore, we must give another reason why if a woman injured somebody, we don't tell her to sell her כתובה בטובת הנאה, and whatever she gets for it should go towards the injury. Because

טובת הנאה מילי נינהו, because it's considered that טובת הנאה is only words. ומילי לא משתעבדי. Words are not משועבד. באמת, the שטר of the כתובה is not mature till when the husband is obligated to pay, which is if he divorces her or if he dies. Before that, the כתובה really is not worth anything. It's only words. It's only a theoretical value, and a theoretical value is not משועבד, is not mortgaged to the injury. It is not mortgaged to somebody that she owes money. So when she caused the injury to somebody, we don't tell her to sell the כתובה, because we only would tell her to sell something which is משועבד to the debt that she owes. But since this whole value of the כתובה as of now is only a theory, and that is not משועבד to the debt that she owes, therefore we don't force her to sell her כתובה. But the גמרא says, אלא מאי, why not? Why do we say that this is only a theoretical value? מילי דמזדבני בדינרי נינהו. Isn't this words, isn't this a theoretical value that could be sold for actual דינרים? In other words, even though it's only a theoretical thing, but she could get money for that theoretical thing. If she sells the כתובה, she at this moment could get money for it. So it does have a practical value. And therefore the question is back: why don't we force her to sell the כתובה, and the money she will get she should pay for the injury? אלא

משום דשמואל. The reason is for, because of what שמואל said. דאמר שמואל, שמואל said, המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו, if someone sells a שטר חוב, a document where it says that someone owes him money, he sells it to his friend, so now the one that bought the שטר חוב is the one that's supposed to collect the money. וחזר ומחלו, if the seller, the one that was the original מלוה, the original person that was owed the money, if he is מוחל, he releases the person who owes the money from paying, מחול, it is מחול. It is forgiven. ואפילו יורש מוחל. Not only that, even if he died and his son took over, so his son or anybody else who inherits could be מוחל that חוב. For instance, if ראובן owed שמעון money, and שמעון sold the שטר to לוי, so now ראובן owes the money to לוי. But nevertheless, שמעון or his יורש could come and be מוחל the חוב. Because after all, even though practically speaking ראובן would have to pay the money to לוי, but still he owes it to שמעון. And because שמעון sold the שטר, that's why he has to pay to לוי. But he really owes it still to שמעון, and therefore if שמעון or his יורש is מוחל, the דין is it is מחול. And the same would apply to a כתובה. If a woman sells her כתובה to another person, if she wants, she is able to be מוחל that כתובה. Since the חוב of the כתובה still is to her, it is only that when the time will come to pay, they'll have to pay to the buyer because she sold the כתובה. But the debt is still to her, so if she wants, she can be מוחל the כתובה. So

therefore, the חכמים did not say that if she causes an injury to somebody, she should have to sell her כתובה, because we would do this in order to have her pay for the person she injured, but on the other hand, this might cause a loss to the other person who bought the כתובה. Because what will happen if she will be מוחל the כתובה? So the person who bought the כתובה will have a loss. So we don't want that she should sell the כתובה in order to pay this person on the חשבון that she will cause a loss to somebody else. But the גמרא asks, אמרי, I will tell you, זבונה תיזבון ותיתיב ליה, let her sell the כתובה and pay for the injury. ואי מחלה לגבי בעל תימחול. If she will be מוחל, she will be מוחל. Why should we at this point worry about she, that she might be מוחל to her husband, and therefore the person who will buy the כתובה will have a loss? At this point we shouldn't care about it, because who knows if it'll happen or not. At this point, she owes money for the injury. Let's tell her to sell her כתובה and pay for the injury. What will happen later will happen later. We'll see, if she'll be מוחל she'll be מוחל, so that person will lose. But why care about it now? But the גמרא answers, אמרי, I will tell you, כל לגבי בעל ודאי מחלה. When it comes concerning her husband, we are sure that she will be מוחל. It's not a ספק. So since we are definite that she will be מוחל, ואפסודי ליה לההוא זבינא בידיים לא מפסדינן. So go outright and tell her to sell it, and outright have a loss caused to another person, that we don't want to do. If it would be in order to pay to that other person, that we don't do. And then the גמרא says, וכי תימא, you might say, תיזבנה לההוא דחבלה ביה בטובת הנאה, let her sell it to the person that she made the injury in. Let she give it to him בטובת הנאה. And in this case, דאי מחלה לגבי בעל, even if she will be מוחל this debt to her husband, לא קא מפסיד, so no one will have a loss, because דהשתא נמי לאו מידי קא יהיב לה. Because now also he's not getting anything. This person who was injured, he won't have a loss. Let her give it to him for the טובת הנאה. In other words, if the כתובה, let's say, is worth at this point with the טובת הנאה $100, let her give the כתובה to the person that she injured. So that's a payment of $100. Now, what are we afraid of? Maybe she'll go ahead and be מוחל this חוב, this כתובה to her husband. So then the one that received the כתובה won't get anything, but still he won't lose anything. Because if we don't say this, that means that she doesn't pay him anything at all. Now she's giving him the כתובה. So there is definitely no loss. If she won't be מוחל, then he has a כתובה which has a value of $100, let's say. If she will be מוחל, so he will get nothing, but since he didn't pay for it, and otherwise he wouldn't get anything anyway from her because she has no other money, so there is no loss to him anyway. So why don't we make her do this? Why don't we say that if a woman injures a person, she should have to give him away the כתובה בטובת הנאה? גמרא says, סוף סוף כל לגבי בעל ודאי מחלה. But סוף סוף, since it's concerning her husband, she will definitely be מוחל. ואטרוחי בית דינא בכדי לא מטרחינן, and we are not מטריח the בית דין for nothing. Since we know for sure she's going to be מוחל, so in essence, he's not getting anything anyway. So why make her give the כתובה to him, and later on when she will be מוחל, he will come to בית דין and they will tell him that you have no claim because she was מוחל? So why make him come to בית דין for nothing, and be מטריח the בית דין for nothing, that's why the חכמים say she should not give him the כתובה. And that's why the דין remains that a woman who injured someone else is פטור from paying. Then the גמרא says, אלא הא דתניא, but when we learn in a ברייתא, וכן היא שחבלה בבעלה לא הפסידה כתובתה, that if a woman injured her husband, she doesn't lose her כתובה. The question is אמאי? Why shouldn't she lose her כתובה? Why shouldn't the דין be that תזבנינה לההיא כתובתה לבעלה, she should have to sell the כתובה to her husband בטובת הנאה, for the value of the טובת הנאה, ובהך חבלה, with this because of this injury, let her give the כתובה to her husband as payment for the injury she made in her husband in the value of the טובת הנאה of the כתובה? ואי מחלה לגבי בעל לית ליה פסידא, and if she will be מוחל to her husband, there will be no loss. Because ממה נפשך, the husband will be פטור from paying the כתובה. If she won't be מוחל, then he is פטור from paying because this is payment for the injury. If she will be מוחל, then he is פטור from paying because of her מוחל, but no one will lose here. And there is no such thing as saying that we don't want to be מטריח the בית דין for nothing because he won't even come to בית דין. Because she is going to be מוחל to him, so he will know that he has no claim to come to בית דין for. So in that case, why shouldn't the דין be that if she injures her husband, she should have to give him the כתובה בטובת הנאה? But תוספות asks a קשיא: how could the גמרא say that even if she'll be מוחל the כתובה to her husband, the husband will have no loss? But it is not so, there will be a loss! Because if the דין would be that she doesn't have to give him the כתובה, so then, if she gets divorced later on, she would still owe him the money for the injury. If, on the other hand, we would say she has to give him the כתובה, and then she will be מוחל the כתובה, so then after he divorces her, he won't be able to collect, because she already paid him with the כתובה. So it comes out that there will be a loss by forcing her to give him the כתובה בטובת הנאה. But תוספות says that no, since now if we do not force her to give the כתובה to the husband, she doesn't pay him anything, so it is not considered a loss, because later on, if he'll divorce her, he'll be able to collect. Because who knows if it'll come to it? Maybe she will die first, or who knows if it'll ever come to that? Therefore, we look at it the way it's now, and since now, if she doesn't give him the כתובה now, he definitely doesn't collect; on the other hand, if she gives him the כתובה, there is no loss, because even if she is מוחל, there is still no loss, therefore the גמרא's קשיא is, why shouldn't the דין be that if she injures her husband, she should have to give him the כתובה בטובת הנאה? And the גמרא answers, הא ודאי דרבי מאיר היא. This is definitely according to רבי מאיר. דאמר, that he says, אסור לאדם שישהא עם אשתו אפילו שעה אחת בלא כתובה, that a person is not allowed to stay with his wife even for a short while without a כתובה.

וטעמא מאי? What is the reason? כדי שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה, in order for it not to be easy in his eyes for him to divorce her. If he knows that when he divorces his wife he has to pay her money, he won't divorce her so fast. So הכא מגרש לה וגבי לה לחבלה מינה. Here, if we're going to force her to give away the כתובה to him as payment for the injury, so then now he will definitely divorce her and he would collect from this כתובה the compensation for his injury. Because now he will get everything that's mentioned in the כתובה that belongs to her will go to him. And therefore we don't say that she should give the כתובה away to her husband בטובת הנאה as payment for her injury, because now he might divorce her in order to collect from the כתובה, and a person is not allowed to live with a wife without a כתובה for this reason, to make it hard for him to divorce her. But then the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, השתא נמי, now too, that we say that she doesn't give him the כתובה בטובת הנאה, and she doesn't pay anything to him, still מגרש לה, he could divorce her, וגבי לה בחבולי מינה, and he will collect for the injury from her. The whole reason you have to have a כתובה, so it should be hard for him to divorce her, he should feel that by divorcing her he will lose, but in this case, he will feel he will gain by divorcing her. Because as soon as he divorces her, he will be able to collect for the injury that she caused him. While if he doesn't divorce her, he won't be able to collect. So אדרבה, here he especially will divorce her. So what do we gain by saying that she should not give him the כתובה בטובת הנאה as payment, because then he will divorce her, but by not giving the כתובה to him, he also will divorce her, because he'll want to collect the money for the injury. So the גמרא says, כגון דנפישא כתובתה. For instance, the case is where the כתובה is a lot of money. So therefore, דמשום ההוא פורתא לא מפסיד טובא. Because of that little bit, he won't lose a lot. In other words, if the injury was not that much, the כתובה was much more than the injury, so what'll happen? He will divorce her in order to collect the money for the injury, but at the same time, he will have to pay her the full amount of the כתובה. So if the full amount of the כתובה is more than the value of the injury, then it's not worth for him to divorce her. And on the other hand, if we will make her give him the כתובה בטובת הנאה, then he will divorce her in order to collect for his injury that's in the כתובה. So therefore, in order for him not to divorce her, as רבי מאיר said that we don't want to make it easy for a husband to divorce her, therefore the דין is that she should not give her כתובה to him בטובת הנאה. But then the גמרא asks, ואי דנפישא כתובתה מכתובה דאורייתא, if her כתובה is more than the כתובה דאורייתא, נוקמה אכתובה דאורייתא, let's change it and make it into כתובה דאורייתא, ואידך, and the rest, תזבין לה ניהליה, let her sell it to him, בחבליה, for the injury. מדינא, a כתובה for a בתולה, for a virgin, is 200. A כתובה for an אלמנה, for a widow, or for a divorcée, is a 100. Now we just said that here we're talking in a case where the כתובה is a lot of money, more than the injury. Now, if the כתובה is a lot, meaning even more than you're supposed to give her על פי דין, because a person is able to add to the כתובה as much as he wants. He must give the minimum of 200 or a 100, but if he wants, he can add more. And since we said now that this כתובה is more than the injury, obviously the כתובה is a big כתובה. So if the כתובה is more than the 200 or than the 100, so then why don't we do this: Let's tell her to sell the כתובה to him. אי, we said that she's going to be left without a כתובה, and you're not allowed to stay without a כתובה because he might divorce her, so let's change the כתובה to the minimum. Let's take this כתובה and give it to the husband, and make the husband write another כתובה for the minimum of 200 or a 100, and the difference between the 200 and 100 and how much in the original כתובה was, that should go to him for the חבלה, for the injury that she made. So the גמרא answers, כגון דלא נפישא כתובתה מכתובה דאורייתא. It's a case where the כתובה is not more than the כתובה דאורייתא, meaning it's not more than על פי דין he's supposed to give. And in a case like that, we can't exchange the כתובה for a כתובה which is minimum, because the כתובה is minimum. אי, we said before that we're talking in a case where it is more than the חבלה, more than the injury, and therefore he will not divorce her in order to collect the money for the injury, but at the same time have to pay for the כתובה, it is a case where the injury is even less than that. כגון דהוה חבלה ארבעה זוזי. Let's say for instance, if the injury is worth four זוז. דמשום ארבעה זוזי, because of the four זוז, לא מפסיד עשרין וחמשה. He will not lose 25. And this means 25 סלעים, because the minimum of a כתובה is a 100. So the גמרא picks the example even of the minimum. A 100 זוז is 25 סלעים. So if the injury is worth four זוז, he will not divorce her in order to collect the four זוז, and at the same time make himself pay the 25 סלעים. So therefore he will not divorce her. On the other hand, if we would tell her she should give him the כתובה for payment for the injury בטובת הנאה, then he definitely would divorce her. And therefore, חכמים said better she shouldn't give the כתובה, and she would be פטור from paying. Then the גמרא says, אלא הא דתניא, but what is the פשט in the ברייתא that we learned? כשם שלא תמכור והיא תחתיו, כך לא

תפסיד והיא תחתיו. As רש״י says, at this point the גמרא thought the פשט was as follows: that just like a woman is not allowed to sell the כתובה while she is still with her husband, so too will she not lose anything of the כתובה while she is under him, meaning that if she injures somebody, they don't take away her כתובה as payment for the injury as long as she is still living with her husband. The question is that how can we say that as a general rule, that she will never lose her כתובה if she injures somebody? והא זמנין משכחת לה דמפסדא, there could be a case where she would lose. היכי דמי? For instance, כגון דנפישא כתובתה מכתובה דאורייתא, if her כתובה is more than the minimum amount that the תורה says she has to have in the כתובה. For instance, if her כתובה was not 200, but was 300, so then if she injures somebody, we would make her sell the כתובה and change her כתובה to the minimum 200. The reason why normally she shouldn't sell her כתובה, because it shouldn't be easy for her husband to divorce her. But for that, it's enough if he gives her the minimum amount. So what we would do is, we would make her sell the כתובה, and change the כתובה for a minimum amount. So she would lose that difference between the minimum amount and the amount that was actually written in her כתובה. That we would make her sell in order to pay for the injury. So how could the ברייתא give as a general rule that a woman will never lose anything of the כתובה in order to pay for an injury? The

גמרא says אמר רבא, רבא said, סיפא אתאן לכתובת בנין דכרין. That this סיפא, this part of the ברייתא, refers to the דין of כתובת בנין דכרין. כתובת בנין דכרין is as follows: Normally we know the דין is that the כתובה is only given if the husband divorces the wife or if the husband dies, and then the יורשים have to pay her the כתובה. But if she dies first, then no כתובה is given. On the other hand, there is a clause in the כתובה that says as follows: The husband says that if you die first and you have children, so then even though after you die I inherit everything that you have, nevertheless, after I die, your children will inherit the amount of money that was written in your כתובה before they take a share in the general inheritance from me. Now what difference does it make whether they first take the amount of the כתובה and then they take the rest as regular inheritance or not? For instance, if this man had other children from another wife, so then what we say is, first these children inherit from their father the value of the כתובה of their mother. Then whatever is left over they divide equally between all the brothers. So if not for this דין of כתובת בנין דכרין, then they לכתחילה would take the whole estate and divide it equally amongst the brothers. But because of this דין of כתובת בנין דכרין, so the children of that wife, the first thing they do is they inherit that amount amongst themselves. Then the rest is divided equally amongst them. And the דין is, if a woman sells her כתובה בטובת הנאה and then dies before her husband, so as we understand, the person who bought the כתובה lost. Because since the woman died before her husband, so there is no כתובה to be given here. So the one that bought the כתובה lost the money that he paid for this כתובה. On the other hand, the children do not lose their share of כתובת בנין דכרין. But after their father dies, so then they do and take from the inheritance of the father first the value of that כתובה that was written to their mother. And even though she had sold the כתובה, and the one that bought the כתובה lost, nevertheless the children could still claim their share in the כתובה later on. And the other children cannot say to these children that if your mother would have been alive now, she wouldn't have collected the כתובה because she sold her כתובה to the לקוח, so it means that the לקוח takes the place of your mother. Now since in this case the לקוח doesn't get anything, so then you don't get anything either. So we don't say that. They still have their share in the כתובת בנין דכרין. And this is what רבא says the ברייתא means:

והכי קתני, this is what it says: כשם שהמוכרת כתובתה לאחר לא הפסידה כתובת בנין דכרין, that just like when a woman sells her כתובה to somebody else, she doesn't lose the כתובת בנין דכרין, meaning that if she dies before her husband, and then her husband dies, nevertheless the children will inherit the כתובה as כתובת בנין דכרין, even though she sold the כתובה before. So we don't say that the לקוח took her place and therefore the children cannot collect the כתובה anymore. מאי טעמא? What is the, what is the reason? Why do we say that? זוזי הוא דאנסוה, because money forced her. The reason she sold her כתובה is because she needed money. She really didn't want to sell the כתובה. She just had no choice because she needed money. And therefore we don't say that the children should lose their share that they're supposed to get later on because of that. So כך מוכרת כתובתה לבעלה, so too, if she sells her כתובה to her husband, לא הפסידה כתובת בנין דכרין, she doesn't lose the כתובת בנין דכרין. And later on, if she dies first and then her husband dies, her children will inherit the share of the כתובה. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? זוזי הוא דאנסוה, that the money forced her. The same reason we give if she sells her כתובה to some somebody else, why the children don't lose their share, so too, if she sells her כתובה to her husband, we give the same reason, that she was forced because of the money, she needed the money, that's why she sold it, but it doesn't mean that the children should lose. And that's the פשט in the ברייתא where it says כשם שלא תמכור והיא תחתיו, כך לא תפסיד והיא תחתיו. So it's not like we thought before that it means that just like she shouldn't sell the כתובה while she is under him, so too, if she causes an injury to somebody, she doesn't lose anything from the כתובה, that's not the פשט. The פשט is, that just like when she sells the כתובה while she is under her husband, there is no loss, meaning that the כתובת בנין דכרין still stay, so too, she doesn't lose anything if she sells it to her husband, that the כתובת בנין דכרין still is there, and therefore, if she dies, and then her husband dies, her children will inherit her share of the כתובה before they inherit the rest of the estate.

Concerning what we learned earlier in the גמרא, the reason why the חכמים didn't say that if a woman injures somebody, she should have to sell her כתובה בטובת הנאה, and pay that money to the one she injured, is because of what שמואל said, that if somebody sells a שטר חוב to his friend, and then he is מוחל, it is מחול. And therefore, here too, if she sells it to somebody else, we're afraid she is going to be מוחל, and therefore, she's going to cause a loss to the one that bought the כתובה, so we don't make her do it to pay for the one she injured on the חשבון that she will cause a loss to somebody else. But then the גמרא asks: what do we care? Who knows if she'll do it or not? At this moment, let her sell it and pay for the injury. If she'll be מוחל, she'll be מוחל. And the גמרא answered that she will definitely be מוחל, because it is a debt to her husband, so we assume that she will definitely be מוחל. But תוספות asks a קשיא: But there is a way, it seems, to sell it in a way that she should not be able to be מוחל, and that is through מעמד שלשתן. It means that if you'll have all three people there, you'll have the husband that owes her the money, and her, and the one she is selling to. And there's a special דין of מעמד שלשתן, that if you have all three there, and the first one says that he gives over the loan to the other one, so automatically it goes over, and then the middleman cannot be מוחל. For instance, if ראובן owes שמעון money, and then they call לוי, and שמעון says to ראובן that instead of you paying me, I want you to pay לוי. So then, automatically the loan goes over to לוי. And in a case like that, שמעון, who is the middleman, cannot be מוחל anymore, because in a case like that, שמעון, so to speak, is out of the picture. In a normal case, where שמעון, for instance, would sell the שטר חוב to לוי, so then, the loan is still owed to שמעון. And therefore, even though ראובן will have to pay to לוי, but nevertheless, since the debt is to שמעון, שמעון is able to be מוחל, and if he is מוחל, ראובן doesn't have to pay anymore. But in a case where it's done through מעמד שלשתן, that all three are standing there, and שמעון says in front of ראובן and לוי that I want you now to pay the money to לוי, automatically it is transferred to לוי, and שמעון cannot be מוחל anymore. So ממילא, why don't we do that here too? Let's have her sell the כתובה to somebody else במעמד שלשתן, that all three will be there, and automatically the debt of the כתובה will go over to that third person, and she won't be able to be מוחל. And then she will pay for the injury, because she will have the money from the sale of the כתובה, and when we're afraid that she might cause a loss to the one that bought the כתובה, she won't be able to because she won't be able to be מוחל. And

תוספות answers that מעמד שלשתן would not help in the case of a כתובה. Since the כתובה is not mature till after he divorces her or after he dies, so it comes out that at this point, the כתובה is not able to be collected. So a שטר which is not עומד לגבות, which is not ready to be collected now, is not considered a שטר that you could sell with מעמד שלשתן. So since you can't sell it with מעמד שלשתן, the only way would be to sell it in a normal way, and if he sells it in a normal way we're afraid she will be מוחל, and therefore the חכמים said that she doesn't have to do that. But תוספות asks another קשיא: If we say that concerning her husband, she definitely will be מוחל, so what did the גמרא say before? That if עדים say that she was paid her כתובה already, and the truth is that she wasn't paid, so we make them pay the טובת הנאה. And what is the טובת הנאה? We estimate how much would a person be ready to pay for this כתובה taking the risk whether he will get it or not, and that amount is the amount that they wanted her to lose, and that's how much they pay her. But if we say that she is definitely going to be מוחל, so who is going to buy the כתובה? We say we have to estimate how much would a person pay to buy the כתובה, but no person would ever buy the כתובה, because we know for sure she's going to be מוחל to her husband! So no one will ever pay a penny for it, because it's not the פשט he's taking a risk, maybe he'll get it, maybe not. He definitely won't get anything out of it, because we said כל לגבי בעל ודאי מחלה, because concerning her husband she definitely will be מוחל. So the כתובה is not worth anything now, because no one is going to buy it. So how could the גמרא say that we evaluate what is the טובת הנאה of the כתובה now, in other words, how much would a person pay for the כתובה now? And תוספות answers that in normal circumstances, there could be a possibility that there is only a risk, but we are not sure that she will be מוחל. For instance, if she gives a משכון, or she gets an ערב, someone who takes ערבות, who guarantees for it, or she will make a נדר or a שבועה that she will not be מוחל, so then we know for sure she will not be מוחל. So then all that remains is a risk whether she will die first or her husband will die first, or divorce her. So therefore, there the גמרא says that there is a טובת הנאה, a value of טובת הנאה to the כתובה. Here, what the גמרא says that לגבי husband, she definitely will be מוחל, we're talking in a case where she injured somebody. And we're saying that she should sell the כתובה in order to pay for her injuries. So obviously, she doesn't have anything else, so she can't give a משכון. Because if she would have something to give a משכון, let her pay with that. Obviously she doesn't have anything to give a משכון. Also, we can't force her to make a נדר or a שבועה that she will not be מוחל the כתובה, because since she doesn't own anything, so there is nothing that there is a שיעבוד on from the person that she injured. Since there is no שיעבוד on her from that person, so she's also not obligated to do anything to make sure that she will not be מוחל. If there would be a שיעבוד on her, then the בית דין could force her to make a שבועה, a נדר, or get an ערב, make sure that the person won't lose. But since there is no שיעבוד, so she is not obligated to do anything. So

therefore, she definitely will not swear, not make a נדר that she will not be מוחל. She will not get an ערב. And as far as the כתובה itself is concerned, since it's concerning her husband, she definitely will be מוחל. Therefore the גמרא says there is no use in having her sell the כתובה, because even though she's going to get some money to pay for the injury, but at the same time, she definitely will cause a loss to the person who bought the כתובה, and therefore the חכמים said she shouldn't do that. Concerning what the גמרא said at the end, that just like when a woman sells the כתובה to somebody else, the בנין דכרין do not lose, so too if she sells her כתובה to her husband, the בנין דכרין do not lose, תוספות asks: לכאורה, how could she sell her כתובה to her husband? She definitely cannot be מוחל her כתובה to her husband because of what רבי מאיר said, that you're not allowed to live with your wife without a כתובה. So if she's מוחל the כתובה, she's not allowed to live with him. So לכאורה, just like she cannot be מוחל the כתובה, she also shouldn't be able to sell her כתובה to her husband. תוספות says: אין הכי נמי, לכתחילה she's טאקע not allowed to sell her כתובה to her husband, but what does the ברייתא mean that if she did sell her כתובה to her husband? She wasn't allowed, but what happens if she did? So then do the children lose, the בנין דכרין lose the כתובת בנין דכרין or not? But the ברייתא says they don't lose. Or

תוספות says, the case is where she sold the תוספת כתובה. She's not allowed to sell the complete כתובה because then it'll be easy for him to divorce her. But what happens if in the כתובה there is more than the minimum? So that extra she's definitely allowed to sell. Because as long as the minimum is left, so then there is a כתובה that the חכמים were מתקן, so then the rest she's allowed to sell. And that's what we're saying, if she sells the rest of the כתובה, the תוספת כתובה, nevertheless, after she died, and then her husband dies, her children will inherit the whole amount of the כתובה, even the part that she sold, because even if she sells the כתובה, as far as the בנין דכרין are concerned, they still don't lose, they still get their share of the כתובה.