Ketubot

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