Ketubot

R. Eliezer b. Jacob interpreted: [The expressions] She'erah kesutha,  [imply]: Provide her with raiment according to her age, viz. that a man shall not provide his old wife  [with the raiment] of a young one nor his young wife with that of an old one. [The expressions], Kesutha we- 'Onatha  [imply.] Provide her with raiment according to the season of the year,  viz. that he shall not give her new raiment  in the summer nor worn out raiment  in the winter.  R. Joseph learnt: Her flesh  implies close bodily contact,  viz, that he must not treat her in the manner of the Persians who perform their conjugal duties in their clothes. This provides support for [a ruling of] R. Huna who laid down that a husband who said, 'I will not [perform conjugal duties] unless she wears her clothes and I mine', must divorce her and give her also her kethubah. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN THE POOREST MAN IN ISRAEL etc. This  then implies that the first Tanna is of the opinion that these  are not [necessary]. But how is one to imagine [the case]? If these  were required by the woman's status,  what [it may be objected could be] the reason of the first Tanna who ruled [that these  were] not [required]? And if these  were not required by the woman's status,  what [it may be objected could be] the reason of R. Judah? — [The ruling was] necessary only [in a case], for instance, where these were demanded by his status but not by hers. The first Tanna is of the opinion that the principle that she  rises with him  but does not go down with him  is applied only during her lifetime  but not after her death, while R. Judah maintains [that the principle applies] even after her death. R. Hisda laid down in the name of Mar 'Ukba that the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah. R. Hisda further stated in the name of Mar 'Ukba: If a man became insane Beth din take possession  of his estate and provide food and clothing for his wife, sons and daughters, and for anything else.  Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Why should this  be different from that concerning which it was taught: If a man 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?  The other replied: Do you not draw a distinction between one who departs  deliberately and one who departs  without knowing it? What [is meant by] 'anything else'? — R. Hisda replied: Cosmetics were meant,  R. Joseph explained: Charity. According to him who replied, 'Cosmetics', the ruling  would apply with even greater force to charity.  He, however, who explained, 'charity' [restricts his ruling  to this alone] but cosmetics [he maintains] must he given to her, for [her husband] would not be pleased that she shall lose her comeliness. R. Hiyya b. Abin stated in the name of R. Huna: If a man went to a country beyond the sea, and his wife died, Beth din take possession  of his estate and bury her in a manner befitting the dignity of his status. [You say] 'In a manner befitting the dignity of his status', and not that of her status!  — Read, In a manner befitting his status also; and it is this that he  informs us: She rises with him [in his dignity] but does not go down with him [to a lower status] even after her death. R. Mattena ruled: A man  who gave instructions that when [his wife] died she shall not be buried at the expense of his estate must be obeyed.  What, however, is the reason [for obeying the man] when he has left instructions? Obviously because the estate falls to the orphans;  but the estate falls to the orphans, does it not, even if he left no instructions?  — [The proper reading], however, is: A man  who gave instructions that when he dies be shall not be buried at the expense of his estate  is not to be obeyed, for it is not within his power  to enrich his sons and throw himself upon the public. MISHNAH. SHE  REMAINS  UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER FATHER  UNTIL SHE ENTERS