כופין על מידת סדום

אק

(א) הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וּפָסְקָה עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּזוּן אֶת בִּתָּהּ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, חַיָּב לְזוּנָהּ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וּפָסְקָה עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּזוּן אֶת בִּתָּהּ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, חַיָּב לְזוּנָהּ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. לֹא יֹאמַר הָרִאשׁוֹן לִכְשֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי אֲזוּנָהּ, אֶלָּא מוֹלִיךְ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ לִמְקוֹם אִמָּהּ. וְכֵן לֹא יֹאמְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם הֲרֵי אָנוּ זָנִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאֶחָד, אֶלָּא אֶחָד זָנָהּ וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן לָהּ דְּמֵי מְזוֹנוֹת:

Mishnah Ketubot 12:1

(1) If a man married a woman and she cut a deal with him that he should maintain her daughter for five years, he must maintain her for five years. If she was [subsequently] married to another man and cut a deal with him [as well] that he should maintain her daughter for five years, he must maintain her for five years. The first husband may not plead, “If she will come to me I will maintain her”, rather he must send her maintenance to her at the place where her mother [lives]. Similarly, the two husbands cannot plead, “We will maintain her jointly”, but one must maintain her and the other give her the cost of her maintenance.

משנה כתובות י״ב:ב׳

(ב) נִשֵּׂאת, הַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת וְהֵן נוֹתְנִין לָהּ דְּמֵי מְזוֹנוֹת. מֵתוּ, בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן נִזּוֹנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְהִיא נִזּוֹנֶת מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְבַעֲלַת חוֹב. הַפִּקְחִים הָיוּ כוֹתְבִים, עַל מְנָת שֶׁאָזוּן אֶת בִּתֵּךְ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאַתְּ עִמִּי:

Mishnah Ketubot 12:2

(2) If she married her husband must supply her with maintenance and they give her the cost of her maintenance. If they die, their daughters are maintained out of their free assets only but she must be maintained even out of assigned property, because she is like a creditor. Clever men used to write, “On condition that I shall maintain your daughter for five years while you are with me”.

כתובות ק״ג א:ב׳-ז׳

לא יאמרו שניהם וכו': ההוא גברא דאוגר ליה ריחיא לחבריה לטחינה לסוף איעתר זבין ריחיא וחמרא אמר ליה עד האידנא הוה טחיננא גבך השתא הב לי אגרא א"ל מיטחן טחיננא לך סבר רבינא למימר היינו מתניתין לא יאמרו שניהם הרי אנו זנין אותה כאחד אלא אחד זנה ואחד נותן לה דמי מזונות א"ל רב עוירא מי דמי התם חד כריסא אית לה תרתי כריסתא לית לה הכא מצי א"ל טחון וזבין טחון ואותיב ולא אמרן אלא דלית ליה טחינא לריחיא אבל אית ליה טחינא לריחיא כגון זו כופין אותו על מדת סדום:

Ketubot 103a:2-7

§ It was taught in the mishna that if two men are obligated to support this girl, both of them may not jointly say that they will be partners in her support. Rather, each one fulfills his obligation independently. The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who rented out a millstone to another for the price of grinding, i.e., the one who rented the millstone was to pay the cost of the rental by grinding whatever the owner needed to be ground. In the end, the owner of the millstone became rich, and he purchased another millstone and a donkey, and he no longer required the services of the renter to grind things for him. The owner of the millstone said to the renter: Until now I would have what I needed ground by you, and the service that you provided was in place of payment for the rental of the millstone. Now, since I no longer require this service, give me payment for the millstone. The renter said back to him: I will grind for you because that is what I agreed to, but I did not agree to have to pay money. Ravina thought to say that this is the same as the mishna that states that both of them may not jointly say: We will sustain the girl as one in a partnership. Rather, one sustains her, providing her with food, while the other gives her the monetary value of the sustenance. In that case, although the original condition was to provide the girl with support in the form of food, when circumstances changed, the previous husband became obligated to pay her support in the form of money. So too here, due to the change in circumstances, the renter should pay the owner of the millstone with money. Rav Avira said to Ravina: Are the two cases comparable? There, in the case of the girl, she has only one stomach; she does not have two stomachs. Therefore, it is impossible for both of them to support her with food. Here, in the case of the millstone, the renter is able to say to him: Grind and sell, grind and store for later use, i.e., the owner of the millstone can use his new millstone to grind for others at a profit, and at the same time the renter will continue grinding the owner’s grain as per their agreement. Therefore, the renter is not obligated to change the terms of the original agreement. The Gemara notes: We said this only in a case where the renter does not have any other grinding to do with the millstone and without the grinding that the renter does for the owner the mill will remain inoperative. However, if he has other grinding to do with the millstone, i.e., instead of grinding the owner’s grain he can grind the grain of others for a fee and thereby pay money for his rental, in a case such as this one forces him to cease his conduct characteristic of Sodom and to pay his rental fee in the form of money.