Talmud for Ketubot 7:2

⁶²This paragraph is from Ŝevi‘it6:3, Notes 116–125; quoted in Babli 57b/58a.“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and “new grain”, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows⁶³If somebody vowed not to eat something which then became mixed with permitted food and is no longer recognizable. Is the mixture forbidden if it contains the most minute amount of forbidden material or does it become permitted if the forbidden food no langer can be tasted?? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there⁶⁴Ketubot 7:9, in a discussion of the difference between the dissolution of a vow by a rabbi for cause compared to that by the father of the vow of his not quite adult daughter. One would have expected the text to read דתני as appropriate for a baraita, not דתנינן תמן used for a Mishnah. “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future⁶⁵While the rabbi might annul the vow, he cannot annul the guilt incurred by violation of the vow before it was annulled.. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there⁶⁶Terumot 9:4, Notes 57–64; quoted in Babli, 60a.: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden⁶⁷Since the growth of the growth from seeds dedicated by a vow remains forbidden, a vow makes it something which admits of an act (a request for annulment) that makes it permitted.. ⁶⁸Ŝevi‘it 6:3, Note 126. (Kilaim 5:7, Note 76; Terumot 7:7, Note 122; ‘Orlah1:1, Note 29; Babli Nedarim 57b). There is a restriction on growth, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there⁶⁹Nedarim 6:9.: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.

⁵³²Shortened versions of this paragraph are in Baba meṣia‘ 4:1 (9c 1. 36), Babli Ketubot 67a/b. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One has a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow⁵³³Then automatically the donkey became the possession of its new owner.. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had died, the donkey’s owner has to bring proof that his donkey was alive at the moment he took the cow. For the burden of proof is on the claimant⁴⁹⁹Baba qama 5:1 (21b 1. 70), Babli Baba qama 27b,46b, Baba batra 92b. except for barter⁵³⁴In case one party had no opportunity to inspect the object given in barter before the transfer of possession.. And anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree⁵³⁵For him, the burden of proof is always on the claimant, without exception. In Baba meṣia‘, he is reported to note that apparently he does not understand civil law.. Rebbi Abba said to Rebbi Ze‘ira: A Mishnah⁵³⁶Ketubot 7:9. The husband divorces his wife because of bodily defects without paying the ketubah. If the defects are discovered between preliminary and definitive marriages, the father (of the underage bride) has to prove that at the moment of preliminary marriage the girl was without blemish in order to collect the ketubah. After definitive marriage, the husband has to prove that she was defective even before the preliminary marriage in order to avoid paying the ketubah. disagrees with Samuel. “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” Not the husband has to prove to regain the [money given] for preliminary marriage from the father⁵³⁷The Babli, loc.cit., notes that it is not obvious that money given for preliminary marriage can be recovered, even if the marriage was entered into under false premises.. The students of Rebbi Jonah said, explain it if little money was involved⁵³⁸Not worth the bother of a court battle. Then only the father’s claim on the husband for the ketubah money remains; the father is the claimant who has to bring proof.. An example: Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yosef⁵³⁹In Baba qama: R. Yose. to learn from him. They said to him, the Mishnah supports Samuel: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove, to extract the ketubah from the husband’s possession⁵⁴⁰The question is, who is considered the claimant? The husband, who wants to avoid paying the ketubah which became due at the moment of divorce, or the father who would have to collect the money.? He answered them, does not Samuel agree that if the cow’s owner took possession of the donkey, he has to prove that it was defective before it came into his possession⁵⁴¹Since possession implies not only rights but also liabilities, the act of taking possession eliminates the liabilities of the previous owner. The owner of the cow should have inspected the donkey before moving the cow; afterwards he certainly is the claimant.? And this one, when he took her in it is as if he drew close⁵⁴²In this respect, definitive marriage of a woman entails transfer of liabilities to the husband, parallel to the transfer of liabilities for livestock by taking possession..

MISHNAH: If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse, the House of Shammai say two weeks, the House of Hillel say one week¹⁶⁵If he does not have his vow dissolved by that time, the wife can go to court and force a divorce with full payment of the ketubah.. Students can go to study Torah for thirty days without permission¹⁶⁶Without asking his wife’s permission if she married him knowing he was a student.; journeymen one week¹⁶⁷They can hire themselves out to work at another place where they cannot return to their homes every night.. The period mentioned in the Torah¹⁶⁸Ex. 21:10, where it is spelled out that a man can take a second wife only if he does not reduce the amount of sexual activity with his first wife.: People who do not have to work every day¹⁶⁹If a man marries a woman telling her that he is rich enough not to have to work, he is obligated to sleep with her every night and cannot later reduce this amount without the wife’s consent. Similarly, a donkey driver engaged in local traffic, who is home every week, cannot change his profession to camel driver engaged in long distance caravan traffic without his wife’s consent., journeymen twice a week, donkey drivers once a week, camel drivers once in thirty days, sailors once in three months, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.