Parallel
כתובות 59
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
maintenance [for a wife] in return for her handiwork, and a silver ma'ah in return for the surplus; and since the husband does not give her the silver ma'ah, the surplus remains hers. R. Adda b. Ahabah, however, is of the opinion that maintenance was ordained in return for the surplus, and the silver ma'ah in return for her handiwork; and since [the husband] supplies her maintenance, the surplus is his. On what principle do they differ? — The Masters hold that the usual is for the usual, and the Master holds that the fixed [sum] is for the fixed [quantity]. An objection was raised: Maintenance [for a wife] was provided in return for her handiwork! — Read: In return for the surplus of her handiwork. Come and hear: If he does not give her a silver ma'ah for her other requirements, her handiwork belongs to her! — Read: The surplus of her handiwork belongs to her. But, surely, in connection with this statement it was taught: What [is the quantity of work that] she must do for him? The weight of five sela's of warp in Judaea [etc.]! — It is this that was meant: What is the quantity of work [that she must do] in order that we might determine how much is her surplus? The weight of five sela's of warp in Judaea which is ten sela's in Galilee. Samuel stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Johanan ha-Sandelar. But could Samuel have made such a statement? Have we not learned: [If a woman said to her husband], if I do aught for your mouth', he need not annul her vow. R. Akiba, however, said: He must annul it, since she might do more work than is due to him. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: He must annul her vow since he might happen to divorce her and she would [owing to her vow] be forbidden to return to him. And Samuel stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri? — When Samuel stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri' [he referred only] to the surplus. Then let him specifically state, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri in respect of the surplus', or else 'The halachah is not in agreement with the first Tanna', or else, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Akiba! — But, replied R. Joseph, you speak of konamoth? Konamoth are different. For, as a man may forbid to himself the fruit of his fellow so may he also consecrate that which is not yet in existence. Said Abaye to him: It is quite logical that a man should be entitled to forbid the use of the fruit of his fellows to himself, since he may also forbid his own fruit to his fellow; should he, however, have the right to forbid something that is not yet in existence, seeing that no man has the right to forbid the fruit of his fellow to his fellow? — But, replied R. Huna son of R. Joshua, [that is a case] where the woman said, 'My hands shall be consecrated to Him who created them', [such consecration being valid] since her hands are in existence. But even if she had said so, could she consecrate them? Are they not mortgaged to him? — [This is a case] where she said, 'When I shall have been divorced'. But is there a consecration that could not take effect now and would nevertheless become effective later? — And why not? retorted R. Elai. Were a man to say to his friend, 'This field that I am selling you shall be consecrated as soon as I shall have re-purchased it from you', would it not become consecrated? R. Jeremiah demurred: What a comparison? There [the seller] has the right to consecrate [his field]; here, however, [the woman] has no power to divorce herself! This is rather similar to the case of a man who said to another, 'This field which I have sold to you shall become consecrated after I shall have re-purchased it from you', where it does not become consecrated. R. Papa demurred: Are the two cases at all similar? There both the field itself and its produce are in the possession of the buyer, but here the wife's person is in her own possession. This is rather similar to the case of a man who said to another,
—
'This field which I have mortgaged to you shall be consecrated after I have redeemed it,' where it is consecrated. R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred: Are these cases similar? There it is in his power to redeem it; but here she has no power to divorce herself. This is rather similar to the case of a man who said to his fellow, 'This field which I have mortgaged to you for ten years shall be consecrated when I shall have redeemed it', where it becomes consecrated. R. Ashi demurred: Are these cases similar? There he has the power to redeem it at least after ten years, but here she has never the power to divorce herself! — But, replied R. Ashi, you speak of konamoth! Konamoth are different [from ordinary vows] since they effect the consecration of the body itself; and [the reason here is the same] as that of Raba, for Raba stated: Consecration, leavened food and manumission cancel a mortgage. They should then become consecrated forthwith! — The Rabbis have imparted force to a husband's rights [over his wife] so that they shall not become consecrated forthwith. MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF WORK WHICH A WOMAN MUST PERFORM FOR HER HUSBAND: GRINDING CORN, BAKING BREAD, WASHING CLOTHES, COOKING, SUCKLING HER CHILD, MAKING READY HIS BED AND WORKING IN WOOL. IF SHE BROUGHT HIM ONE BONDWOMAN SHE NEED NOT DO ANY GRINDING OR BAKING OR WASHING. [IF SHE BROUGHT] TWO BONDWOMEN, SHE NEED NOT EVEN COOK OR SUCKLE HER CHILD. IF THREE, SHE NEED NEITHER MAKE READY HIS BED NOR WORK IN WOOL. IF FOUR, SHE MAY LOUNGE IN AN EASY CHAIR. R. ELIEZER SAID: EVEN IF SHE BROUGHT HIM A HUNDRED BONDWOMEN HE MAY COMPEL HER TO WORK IN WOOL; FOR IDLENESS LEADS TO UNCHASTITY. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: EVEN IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE UNDER A VOW TO DO ANY WORK HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER KETHUBAH TO HER FOR IDLENESS LEADS TO IDIOCY. GEMARA. GRINDING CORN! How could you imagine this? — Read: Attending to the grinding. And if you prefer I might say: With a hand mill. Our Mishnah does not agree with the view of R. Hiyya. For R. Hiyya taught: A wife [should be taken] mainly for the sake of her beauty; mainly for the sake of children. And R. Hiyya further taught: A wife is mainly for the wearing of a woman's finery. And R. Hiyya further taught: He who wishes his wife to look graceful should clothe her in linen garments. He who wishes his daughter to have a bright complexion, let him, on the approach of her maturity, feed her with young fowls and give her milk to drink. SUCKLING HER CHILD. Must it be assumed that our Mishnah does not agree with the View of Beth Shammai? For was it not taught: If a woman vowed not to sickle her child she must, said Beth Shammai, pull the breast out of its mouth, and Beth Hillel said: [Her husband] may compel her to suckle it. If she was divorced he cannot compel her; but if [the child] knows her [her husband] pays her the fee and may compel her to suckle it in order [to avert] danger? — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of Beth Shammai, but here we are dealing with such a case, for instance, where the woman made a vow and her husband confirmed it; Beth Shammai being of the opinion that he has thereby put his finger between her teeth, while Beth Hillel hold that it is she that has put her finger between her teeth. Then let them express their disagreement as regards a kethubah generally. Furthermore, it was taught: Beth Shammai said: She need not suckle [her child]! — But, clearly, our Mishnah is not in agreement with the view of Beth Shammai. 'If [the child] knows her'.
—