Study Ketubot folio 28A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואם היה כהן — לא תדור עמו במבוי. אם היה כפר קטן — זה היה מעשה ואמרו: כפר קטן נידון כשכונה.
And if he was a priest she may not live with him even in one alleyway that opens into several courtyards, even if she did not remarry, as she is forbidden to him forever. What is the ruling if it was a small village? May she live with her ex-husband in the same village? The Talmud relates that this case of his divorcée and a small village was an incident that transpired and the rabbis said: A small village is judged as his immediate proximity.
מי נדחה מפני מי? תא שמע, דתניא: היא נדחית מפניו, ואין הוא נדחה מפניה. ואם היתה חצר שלה — הוא נדחה מפניה.
The Talmud asks: In cases where they may not reside in the same courtyard or alleyway, who is ousted in favor of whom? Which of them must leave? The Talmud suggests: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: She is ousted in favor of him, and leaves, and he is not ousted in favor of her. But if it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her.
איבעיא להו: היתה חצר של שניהם, מהו? תא שמע: היא נדחית מפניו. במאי עסקינן? אילימא בחצר שלו, פשיטא! ואלא בחצר שלה, והתניא: אם היתה חצר שלה — הוא נדחה מפניה. אלא לאו כי האי גוונא, דלמא דאגיר מיגר.
A dilemma was raised before the rabbis: If it was a courtyard belonging to both of them, what is the halakha; who is ousted in favor of whom? The Talmud suggests: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: She is ousted in favor of him. The Talmud elaborates: With what circumstances are we dealing? If we say that the subject of the baraita is with regard to his courtyard, it is obvious that she is ousted. But rather, is it with regard to her courtyard? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her? Rather, is it not that the baraita is dealing with a case like this, where it was a courtyard belonging to both of them? The Talmud rejects this proof: Perhaps the baraita is teaching that even in a case where he rented the courtyard she is ousted in his favor. Therefore, the dilemma with regard to a courtyard belonging to both of them is unresolved.