Ketubot 95: Land, Ketubot, and Women's Rights

Amud (a) teaches a new Mishna.  It states that if a man marries two women and he sold his field, the first wife relinquishes her rights to that property as part of her ketuba by writing to the purchaser, "I do not have any legal dealings or involvement with you".  The second wife is able to appropriate the property from the purchaser to pay her ketuba.  After this, the first wife is able to appropriate the property from the second wife to pay her ketuba for she married first. The purchaser can then appropriate the field from the first wife because of her initial document.  This cycle should be curtailed with a compromise - and the same applies to another creditor whether male or female.

The Gemara dives into the question of women's agency.  When is a woman's contract valid?  Even when men are creating such agreements, verbal contracts have stringent rules keeping them in check. The rabbis describe the many circumstances when the contracts of women can be nullified by their husbands or the courts.  In fact, women are subject to the principle of "she only did it to please her husband".  Judges seem to take that consideration very seriously.  Those words can put a woman in a very bad place - her decisions can be nullified without her consent.  At the same time, they can benefit her, for she is protected from potential legal battles through this principle.

As the rabbis share their thoughts about this Mishna, they also share interesting information about relationships between married couples.  It seems that the divorced woman is seen as stronger-willed than her 'virgin' counterpart.  Divorced women would not change their behaviour to "please their husbands", the rabbis tell us.  First-time brides, however, are wanting to earn their husbands' love and affection.  They are so eager to please their husbands that they might sign away their rights; that they might make inappropriate or even illegal decisions.

From one perspective, this is a great kindness to women.  If new brides aWre so oriented to the pleasure of their husbands that they might damage their own financial futures, certainly they should be protected!  From another perspective, we are encouraging new brides to be completely reliant on their husbands; to have far fewer rights than their husbands; to maintain a facade whereby women are not expected to think clearly as they are so blinded by the need to care for others.

The rabbis share other examples of purchases of land that affect wives.

Amud (b) introduces the concept of damaged goods.  If a property becomes blighted over the course of the purchase/loan, how should others assess and deal with this potential conflict?  The rabbis place a great deal of responsibility on purchasers.  They seem to espouse a "buyer beware" philosophy.  

Great detail is shared regarding all of these interactions.  I find much of that text very difficult to digest.  It is often complex and it draws on ideas that are unfamiliar to me.  However, I'll continue to plug away...

Our daf ends as we begin Perek X with another new Mishna.  We learn that a widow is sustained by the property of orphans.  They own any earnings that she receives, and they are not responsible for her burial.  Her heirs inherit her ketuba and they look after the cost of her burial.

The Gemara begins with a question about wording.  If the Mishna says "a woman who is sustained", there is not a difficulty, for this accounts for the fact that widows in the Galil are permitted to live in their late husbands' residences; heirs must also give them sustenance.  This is compared with women of Judea who are sustained by heirs in their late husbands' residences until they receive their kutubot, which can happen at any time.