Parallel
כתובות 107
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
An allowance for maintenance must be granted to a married woman, but Samuel ruled: No allowance may be granted to a married woman. Said Samuel: Abba agrees with me [that no allowance is to be granted] during the first three months, because no man leaves his house empty. In a case where a report was received that he was dead there is no difference of opinion between them. They only differ when no one heard that he was dead. Rab ruled, 'An allowance for maintenance must be granted' since he is under an obligation [to maintain her]; on what ground however, did Samuel rule, 'No allowance may be granted'? — R. Zebid replied: Because it might well be assumed that he handed over to her some bundles [of valuables]. R. Papa replied: We must take into consideration the possibility that he told her, 'Deduct [the proceeds of] your handiwork for your maintenance'. What is the practical difference between them? — The practical difference between them is the case of a woman who is of age but [the proceeds of whose handiwork] did not suffice [for her maintenance], or a minor [the proceeds of whose handiwork] is sufficient [for her maintenance]. We learned: IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND HIS WIFE CLAIMED MAINTENANCE, HANAN RULED: SHE MUST TAKE AN OATH AT THE END BUT NOT AT THE BEGINNING. THE SONS OF THE HIGH PRIESTS, HOWEVER, DIFFERED FROM HIM AND RULED THAT SHE MUST TAKE AN OATH BOTH AT THE BEGINNING AND AT THE END. They thus differ only in respect of the oath but [agree, do they not,] that maintenance must be given to her? — Samuel explained [this to refer to a case] where a report had been received that [the absent husband] was dead. Come and hear: If [a husband] went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance she must, said the sons of the High Priests, take an oath, Hanan said: She need not take an oath. If [the husband] came, however, and declared, 'I have provided for her maintenance' he is believed. Here also [it may be replied] is a case where a report was received that he was dead. But, did it not Say, 'If [the husband] came, however, and declared'? [The meaning of the expression is,] If he came after the report had been received. Come and hear: If [a husband] went to a country beyond the sea, and his wife claimed maintenance, and he returned and said [to her], 'Deduct your handiwork for your maintenance', he is entitled [to withhold it]. If Beth din, however, granted the allowance before [he returned] their decision is valid. Here also it is a case where a report that he had died was received. Come and hear: If [a husband] went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance, Beth din take possession of his estate and provide food and clothing for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters or for anything else! — R. Shesheth replied; [Here it is a case] where a husband maintained his wife at the hands of a trustee. If so, [should not maintenance be granted to] one's sons and daughters also? [It is a case] where [a husband] made provision for the maintenance of his wife but not of his daughters. Whence this certainty? — This, however, said R. Papa, [is the explanation: This is a case] where she heard from one witness that [her husband] had died. To her, since she could Marry on the evidence of one witness, we must also grant maintenance; to his sons and daughters, however, since they, even if they desired it, could not be allowed to take possession of his estate on the evidence of one witness, maintenance also may not be granted — What [is meant by] 'anything else'? R. Hisda replied: Cosmetics. R. Joseph replied: Charity. According to him who replied, 'Cosmetics' the ruling would apply with even greater force to
—
charity. He, however, who replied, 'Charity' [restricts the ruling to this alone] but cosmetics [he maintains] must be given to her, for [her husband] would not be pleased that she should lose her comeliness. Come and hear: A yebamah during the first three months is maintained out of the estate of her husband — Subsequently she is not to be maintained either out of the estate of her husband or out of that of the levir. If, however, [the levir] appeared in court and then absconded she is maintained out of the estate of the levir! — Samuel can answer you: What possibility need we take into consideration in the case of this [woman]? If that of [having been entrusted with] bundles of valuables [one could well object that such a levir] is not well disposed towards her; and if that of [the remission of] her handiwork [the fact is, it could be retorted, that] she is under no obligation to give it to him. Come and hear: A woman who went with her husband to a country beyond the sea and then came back and stated, 'My husband is dead', may, if she wishes, successfully claim her maintenance and, if she prefers, may equally claim her kethubah. [If she stated, however,] 'My husband has divorced me', she may be maintained to the extent of her kethubah! — Here also [it may be replied, it is a case] where a report was received that he had died. Then why [is she maintained] only to the extent of her kethubah? — Because she herself has brought the loss upon herself. Come and hear: In what circumstances was it laid down that [a minor who] exercised her right of refusal is not entitled to maintenance? It cannot be said, In [those of] one who lives with her husband, since [in such circumstances] her husband is under an obligation to maintain her, but [in those], for instance, [of one] whose husband went to a country beyond the sea, and she borrowed money and spent it and then exercised her right of refusal. Now, the reason [why she is not entitled to maintenance is obviously] because she exercised her right of refusal; had she, however, not exercised her right of refusal, maintenance would have been granted to her? — Samuel can answer you: What possibility need we provide against as far as she is concerned? If against that of [having been entrusted with] bundles of valuables [it may be pointed out that] no one entrusts a minor with valuables; and if against that of [the man's remission of] her handiwork [the fact is, it could be argued, that] the handiwork of a minor does not suffice [for her maintenance]. What is the ultimate decision? When R. Dimi came he related: Such a case was submitted to Rabbi at Beth She'arim and he granted the Woman an allowance for her maintenance, [while a similar case was submitted] to R. Ishmael at Sepphoris and he did not grant her any maintenance. R. Johanan was astonished at this decision — What reason [he wondered] could R. Ishmael see that [in consequence of it] he allowed her no maintenance? Surely the sons of the High Priests and Hanan differed only on the question of the oath, but [they all agree, do they not, that] maintenance is to be given to her? — R. Shaman b. Abba answered him: Our Master, Samuel, in Babylon has long ago explained this [as being a case] where a report had been received that [the absent husband] had died. 'You', the other remarked, 'explain so much with this reply'. When Rabin came he related: Such a case was submitted to Rabbi at Beth She'arim and he did not grant the woman any maintenance, [while in a similar case which was submitted] to R. Ishmael at Sepphoris [the latter] granted her an allowance for her maintenance. Said R. Johanan: What reason could Rabbi see for not granting her an allowance, when Hanan and the sons of the High Priests obviously differed only in respect of the oath but [agreed that] maintenance is to be given her? — R. Shaman b. Abba replied: Samuel in Babylon has long ago explained this [as being a case] where a report has been received that [the absent husband] had died. 'You', the other remarked, 'explain so much with this answer'. The law, however, is in agreement with Rab, and a married woman is to be granted an allowance for her maintenance. The law is also in agreement with a ruling which R. Huna laid down in the name of Rab, R. Huna having stated on the authority of Rab: A wife is within her rights when she says to her husband, 'I desire no maintenance from, and refuse to do [any work for you]'. The law, furthermore, agrees with a ruling of R. Zebid in respect of glazed vessels, R. Zebid having laid down: Glazed vessels are permitted if they are white or black, but forbidden if green. This, however, applies only to such as have no cracks but if they have cracks they are forbidden. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WENT TO A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA AND SOMEONE CAME FORWARD AND MAINTAINED HIS WIFE, HANAN SAID: HE LOSES HIS MONEY. THE SONS OF THE HIGH PRIESTS DIFFERED FROM HIM AND RULED: LET HIM TAKE AN OATH AS TO HOW MUCH HE SPENT AND RECOVER IT. SAID R. DOSA B. HARKINAS: [MY OPINION IS] IN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR RULING. R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI SAID: HANAN SPOKE WELL [FOR THE MAN] PUT HIS MONEY ON A STAG'S HORN. GEMARA. Elsewhere we have learned: If a man is forbidden by a vow to have any benefit from another
—