|
Since the first nine mishnayot are only loosely thematically connected, I’ll start at the end: Mishnah 10 – 11, which deal with situations in which one spouse wants to live in one place and another wants to live somewhere else.
Mishnah 10 rules that a husband cannot compel his wife to move to a wholly different type of environment: Not from a big city to a small one or vice versa, and not from one region in Israel to another one; although, according to the first opinion in the Mishnah, the husband may compel his wife to move to a nicer home. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel offers the minority view that the husband cannot even force his wife to move to a nicer home because all moves – even to a nicer place – involve unhealthy stress.
Mishnah 11 rules that either spouse may compel the family to move from chutz la’aretz to Israel, and from within Israel to Jerusalem – even if it means downgrading living arrangements. It then explores what happens if a couple that’s moved either to or from Israel and then divorces, if the husband pays the ketubah based on the currency in Israel or the currency where they live/d in chutz la’aretz (it’s a machloket).
OK, now to the beginning. Rather than trying to thread the thematic needle, I’ll just try to call out the major points from Mishnayot 1 – 9 below. But first, I’ll note that this chapter introduces us to a rare cast of characters, their edicts, and their disagreements: Admon, Chanan ben Avishalom, the cryptically-named “Sons of the High Priests” – as well as the very familiar character Rabban Gamliel, who frequently sides with Admon against the Rabbis.
Now to the main points of the first nine mishnayot:
Mishnah 1: If a husband went abroad and the wife must take money from the husband’s estate to support herself, she must swear that she doesn’t already have any money that her husband set before dipping into her husband (and, by extension, her husband’s other dependents’ and heirs’) assets.
Mishnah 2: If a husband went abroad and someone stepped up and supported his wife in his absence, can the man who supported the wife demand the husband (upon his return) repay him? Or is this an act of charity, and the benefactor can’t demand remuneration? (Spoiler: It’s a makhloket!)
Mishnah 3: If a husband died and left behind sons and daughters and not enough money to go around, who gets supported by the estate? The first opinion of the Mishnah is that only the daughters get support. Admon argues that they should split the small pie equally.
Mishnah 4 discusses a variation on the following general law: If someone admits to owing part of a claim against him/her, that partial admission gives enough credence to the whole claim that it requires the defendant to take an oath that s/he doesn’t owe the whole amount. In the classic example, if you sue me for the amount of two maneh and I admit in court that I only owe one, I must swear I don’t owe you the second maneh.
In our Mishnah’s case, someone sues for a certain numbers of jugs of oil and the defendant claims he only owes jugs, but no oil at all. Is this also partial admission – or are the jugs sufficiently unrelated to the claim that the defendant would not need to swear? (It’s a makhloket.)
Mishnah 5 asks what happens if a couple is already betrothed, but the father of the bride goes broke before the wedding and cannot pay the dowry. Can the groom refuse to go through with the wedding and leave the wife in limbo, or can the bride claim that she shouldn’t be penalized for her father’s misfortune? (It’s a makhloket).
Mishnah 6 deals with the case where one person – let’s call him Reuven – sold a piece of land to Shimon, and Levi is a signatory to the sale. In this particular case, Levi claims that in fact the land was his (Levi’s) property all along, Reuven stole the property, and Levi only acted as a witness as a ruse to get the property out of Reuven’s hands and into the hands of someone who wasn’t a criminal and could more easily be sued in court. Do we accept the possibility of this claim? Admon says yes, the Rabbis say no.
Mishnah 7 asks: If someone had a piece of property and he had used a path cutting through others’ fields to get to his property – and then he goes abroad and comes back to find that path has disappeared – does he have any rights to cut a new path through other properties to his field? (It’s a makhloket)
Mishnah 8 deals with a case where Reuven claims Shimon owes him money, but Shimon points out that after the loan contract is dated, Reuven then sold land to Shimon. If Shimon owed money, Shimon can argue, why sell him anything? Why not just take his money? Admon sees this as a valid claim – and would accept the deed of sale as proof that the loan has been paid off. The Rabbis, however, argue that Reuven could have sold his land as a way to more get money out of Shimon – then, if Shimon doesn’t pay off the loan, Reuven can simply reclaim the property as collateral.
Mishnah 9 deals with a case where Reuven and Shimon both present loan contracts against each other. Do we let the contracts stand on their own merits? Or would we entertain the first lender’s refusal to pay on the grounds claim that it makes no sense to borrow money from someone who already owes you? (It’s a makhloket)
That’s a wrap – hadran alach – on Ketubot. To get a deeper read on hatarat nedarim and kol nidrei during the High Holidays, stay with us as we enter the next masechet: Nedarim.
As a reminder, please save the date for our next Zoom shiur, with Rabbi Shlomo Weissman the administrator of the Beth Din of America, on March 17th. Save the date!
| 
