(Mishnah): A Kohen writes 'If you will be captured, I will return you to your land.'

(Abaye): If a Kohen Gadol married a widow, he must redeem her. We apply to her, or to any Kohen's wife (who becomes forbidden when captured) 'I will return you to your land.'

If a Mamzeres or Nesinah was married to a Yisrael, he need not redeem her, since 'I will return you for a wife' does not apply.

(Rava): Whenever the captivity caused her to be forbidden to her husband, he must redeem her. If she was forbidden without this (e.g. a widow to a Kohen Gadol), he is exempt.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue like Abaye and Rava:

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If one forbade his wife through a vow, and she was captured, he redeems her and gives to her a Kesuvah;

R. Yehoshua says, he need not redeem her, but must pay a Kesuvah;

Question (R. Nasan): Does R. Yehoshua discuss when the vow preceded the captivity, or when it came later?

Answer (Sumchus): I did not hear, but presumably, the vow came first. If not, he will scheme (he will vow to exempt himself of the obligation to redeem her)!

Suggestion: The Tana'im argue about a Kohen. (R. Eliezer would not obligate a Yisrael to redeem her, since 'I will return you for a wife' does not apply.) Abaye holds like R. Eliezer, and Rava holds like R. Yehoshua.

Rejection: No, (they discuss a Yisrael;) the case is, she forbade herself to him through a vow and he confirmed the vow;

R. Eliezer holds that he is to blame (for confirming it). R. Yehoshua says that she is to blame.

Objection #1: If R. Yehoshua blames her, her husband should not need to pay a Kesuvah!

Objection #2: If R. Yehoshua says that she is to blame, why did R. Nasan ask whether the vow preceded the captivity? It makes no difference!

Retraction: Rather, he vowed. Abaye and Rava argue according to both Tana'im:

Abaye says that all agree that a Kohen Gadol must redeem a widow, but a Yisrael need not redeem a Mamzeres or Nesinah. A Kohen who vowed must redeem his wife, just like the Kohen Gadol.

They argue about a Yisrael who vowed. R. Eliezer goes according to the beginning (when he wrote the Kesuvah 'I will return you as a wife' applied). R. Yehoshua goes according to the end (when she was captured, he could not return her to be a wife).

Rava says that all agree that a Kohen Gadol married to a widow or a Yisrael married to a Mamzeres or Nesinah need not redeem her;

They argue about a Kohen or Yisrael who vowed. R. Eliezer goes according to the beginning (when he wrote the Kesuvah, there was no other Isur). R. Yehoshua goes according to the end (without the captivity, she is forbidden due to the vow).

(Beraisa): If she was captured in his lifetime, and he died, the heirs must redeem her only if he had heard that she was captured.

Levi was ready to rule in a case like this Beraisa.

(Rav citing R. Chiya): The Halachah does not follow this Beraisa. Rather, it is like the following Beraisa:

(Beraisa): If she was captured after the husband died, or even during his lifetime and he died, the heirs need not redeem her, since 'I will return you to be my wife' does not apply.

(Beraisa): If the captors demanded up to 10 times her value, the first time, he must redeem her. After this, it is his choice;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, we do not redeem captives for more than their value (to be sold for slaves). This is an enactment to fix the world (lest we encourage captors to ask for exorbitant amounts);

Inference: Up to her value we redeem, even if it exceeds her Kesuvah!

Contradiction (Beraisa): If the captors demanded up to 10 times her Kesuvah, the first time, he must redeem her. After this, it is his choice;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if her redemption does not exceed her Kesuvah, he must redeem her. If it is more, he is exempt.

Answer: R. Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient both ways. (One need not pay more than her value, nor more than her Kesuvah.)

(Mishnah): If she gets sick, he must heal her.

(Beraisa): A widow is fed from the orphans. Medical expenses are like food;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, medical expenses with a limit are taken from her Kesuvah. If there is no limit, they are like food.

(R. Yochanan): In Eretz Yisrael, bloodletting is considered to be unlimited.

R. Yochanan's relatives lost their father; the widow had daily medical expenses. He advised them to get a doctor to fix a price to treat her permanently (so it will be deducted from the Kesuvah).

R. Yochanan: I acted like a lawyer (which is wrong - Avos 1:8).

Question: Why did he initially advise them, and later regret it?

Answer: Initially, he thought that he should fulfill "Do not hide from your flesh (kin)." Later, he thought that an important person should not do so (his counsel hurt the widow).

(Mishnah): The following enactments of Beis Din apply, even if they were not written in the Kesuvah:

'Your sons from me will inherit the money of your Kesuvah together will their portion with their brothers (from other wives)';

'Your daughters from me will live in my house and be fed from my property until they get married';

'You will live in my house and be fed from my property all the days of your widowhood in my house.'

People in Yerushalayim and Galil wrote this. In Yehudah, they wrote '...until the heirs want to pay your Kesuvah.' Therefore, if they wanted they could pay her Kesuvah and end her privileges.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): Chachamim enacted 'Kesuvas Benin Dichrin' (that sons inherit their mother's Kesuvah) to encourage men to give property to their daughters, like to their sons. (Amram is hesitant to give a dowry to his daughter (Miryam), lest she die before her husband (Kalev), and part or most of the dowry will be inherited by Kalev's sons from other wives.)

Question: The Torah says that a son inherits and not a daughter. Would Chachamim enact (to encourage fathers to give) as if a daughter inherits?!

Answer: The Torah says that a man should give to his daughter - "Take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men";

Question: Granted, it is normal for a man to seek a girl (for himself or for his son). But it is not normal (for a woman, or a man on behalf of his daughter) to seek a man!

Answer: The verse teaches that one should give to daughters clothing and property so men will want to marry them.

Question: How much should he give?

Answer (Abaye and Rava): He should give up to a tenth of his property.

Question: (If the enactment was to encourage dowries,) it should apply to only to the dowry that her father (Amram) gave, but not to what the husband (Kalev) pays! (The Ikar Kesuvah of 100 or 200 should be inherited by all his sons.)

Answer: If her sons would not (exclusively) inherit also from her husband, Amram would not want to give.

Question: We should say that her sons exclusively inherit what the husband pays only when Amram gave a dowry!

Answer: Chachamim made a uniform decree.

Question: If Miryam has a daughter but no sons, her daughter should inherit the Kesuvah, even when Kalev has sons from other wives!

Answer: Chachamim made their enactment like an inheritance (daughters do not inherit when there are sons).

Question: When Kalev has only daughters, Miryam's daughter should (exclusively) inherit her mother's Kesuvah!

Answer: Chachamim made a uniform decree.

Question: It should be collected from Metaltelim as well!

Answer: Chachamim made the enactment like a Kesuvah.

Question: Miryam should be able to seize (on behalf of her sons) property that Kalev sold!

Answer: The Mishnah says 'they inherit' (heirs do not receive property that was sold).

Question: The enactment should apply even if Kalev does not leave more property than his wives' Kesuvos!

Answer: Chachamim did not enact in a case where inheritance mid'Oraisa will be uprooted.