Gemara Clarity

Kesubos 56a

כתובות נ״ו ע״א

Ketubot 56a

Learn Kesubos 56a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Kesubos 56a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The ruling on an engaged woman's extra כתובה money, when the closeness of marriage begins (חופה or ביאה), and רבי יהודה's view on a bride's receipt and on giving up part of the כתובה.

Overview

The גמרא concludes that both sides of the argument about רבי אלעזר בן עזריה rely on reading the husband's intent. One side says the extra כתובה money was pledged for the marriage itself, so an engaged woman does not collect it. The other side says it was pledged out of a closeness that already existed, so she does. After a list of conflicting rulings, including רב נחמן's curse on judges who follow רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, the הלכה is fixed like רבי אלעזר בן עזריה. רבין then asks whether the closeness of the חופה alone earns the extra money, or only the closeness of ביאה. A ברייתא about 'the first night' turns out to fit both views. רב אשי asks about a bride who became a נידה under the חופה, and his question ends in תיקו. The גמרא next asks how רבי יהודה can let a bride write a receipt when elsewhere he rejects receipts; רבי ירמיה and אביי each give an answer. Finally, the גמרא asks why a spoken waiver of the כתובה does not work for רבי יהודה. It answers that the חכמים strengthened the rabbinic כתובה, and then challenges that answer from the husband's rabbinic right to פירות.

Opening lines

אֶלָּא: תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אָזְלִי בָּתַר אוּמְדָּנָא.

Rather: both of them follow the assessment of intent.

מַאן דְּאָמַר הֲלָכָה — שַׁפִּיר,

The one who says the halakha follows him — that is fine,

מַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין הֲלָכָה —

The one who says the halakha does not follow him —

הָכָא נָמֵי אוּמְדַּן דַּעְתָּא הוּא.

here too it is an assessment of intent.

The steps (29)

  1. ResolutionBoth opinions rely on assessing intent
  2. ResolutionHow each side reads the husband's intent
  3. Statementרבי ינאי rejects רב חנינא's ruling
  4. Statementרבינו rules like רבי אלעזר בן עזריה
  5. Statementשמואל also rules like רבי אלעזר בן עזריה
  6. Statementרב נחמן's own view disagrees
  7. StatementThe scholars of נהרדעא quote רב נחמן the other way
  8. ConclusionEven despite רב נחמן's curse, the law follows רבי אלעזר בן עזריה
  9. ConclusionThe practical ruling follows רבי אלעזר בן עזריה
  10. Questionרבין asks: does the חופה alone bring the closeness?
  11. ProofProof from 'the closeness of the first night'
  12. RejectionBut a חופה isn't only at night either
  13. ChallengeBy that logic, relations aren't only at night either
  14. Resolution'Night' just describes the usual practice
  15. ResolutionThe 'night' wording fits the חופה view too
  16. QuestionWhat if the bride became a נידה under the חופה?
  17. ConclusionThe question stays unresolved
  18. StatementQuoting רבי יהודה's ruling from the משנה
  19. Challengeרבי יהודה elsewhere rejects receipts
  20. ResolutionThe receipt is written inside the כתובה itself
  21. Resolutionאביי: A receipt here is different because no money was really paid
  22. QuestionWhy did רבי ירמיה not answer like אביי?
  23. ResponseA decree so this receipt is treated like ordinary receipts
  24. StatementOnly a written receipt works, not just saying it
  25. ChallengeBut רבי יהודה says a condition about money stands
  26. ProofThe ברייתא: a condition to give up food and clothing
  27. ResolutionA כתובה is rabbinic, so the Sages made it stronger
  28. ChallengeThe husband's right to produce is also rabbinic but was not strengthened
  29. ProofThe משנה about produce of produce