Ketubot

According to R. Samuel b. Judah, however, the earlier [ruling of the] Mishnah is due to [the possible detection of] a bodily defect and the later is also due to [the possible detection of] a bodily defect, what then is [the reason for] their difference? — [The principle underlying] the difference is the [efficacy of an] examination by outsiders. One Master  is of the opinion that an examination by others  is regarded as effective,  while the other Master  holds the opinion that an examination by others is not regarded as effective. MISHNAH. IF A MAN CONSECRATED HIS WIFE'S HANDIWORK,  SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO WORK AND TO CONSUME [THE PROCEEDS HERSELF].  [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS  [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.  R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR RULED: IT REMAINS UNCONSECRATED. GEMARA. R. Huna stated in the name of Rab:  A woman is entitled to say to her husband, 'I do not wish either to be maintained by you or to work for you'. He holds the opinion that when the Rabbis regulated [the relations of husband and wife] her maintenance was fundamental  while [the assignment of the proceeds of] her handiwork [to her husband] was due [only to their desire for preventing] ill-feeling.  If, therefore, she said, 'I do not wish either to be maintained by you or to work for you', she is entitled to do so. An objection was raised: Maintenance [for a wife] was provided in return for her handiwork!  — Read: Her handiwork was assigned [to her husband] in return for her maintenance. May it be suggested that [our Mishnah] provides support for his  view? [It stated,] IF A MAN CONSECRATED HIS WIFE'S HANDIWORK SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO WORK AND TO CONSUME [THE PROCEEDS HERSELF]. Does not [this refer to a wife for whom her husband is able  to] provide maintenance?  — No; [it is a case where the husband is unable to] provide her maintenance. If, however, [her husband is unable to] provide her maintenance, what need was there to state [such an obvious case]?  Even according to him who holds that a master has the right to say to his slave, 'Work for me but I will not maintain you,'  such a rule applies only to a Canaanite slave concerning whom Scripture has not written 'with thee', but not to a Hebrew slave concerning whom it is written in Scripture. With thee,  how much less then [would this apply to] his wife?  — It  was necessary [as an introduction to] the final clause: [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.  R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR RULED: IT REMAINS UNCONSECRATED. Now [R. Huna's ruling] is in disagreement with that of Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish stated: You must not assume that R. Meir's reason  is because he is of the opinion that a man may consecrate that which has not yet come into existence  but this is R. Meir's reason: Since [a husband] has the right to compel her to work, his consecration is regarded as if he had said to her, 'May your hands  be consecrated to Him who created them'. But, surely, he  did not use such an expression!  — Since R. Meir was heard to state that a man does not utter his words to no purpose,  [the expression the husband used here]  may be regarded as if he had actually said to her, 'May your hands be consecrated to Him who created them'. But is R. Meir of the opinion that a man cannot consecrate anything that is not yet in existence? Surely it was taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Be thou betrothed unto me after I shall have become a proselyte' or 'After thou shalt have become a proselyte'. 'After I shall have been set free', 'After thou shalt have been set free', 'After thy husband will have died', 'After thy sister will have died', or 'After thy brother-in-law shall have submitted to halizah  from thee', she, R. Meir ruled, is legally betrothed!  — From that [Baraitha] the inference  may indeed be drawn;  from this, [our Mishnah], however, it cannot be inferred. [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED. When does it become consecrated? — Both Rab and Samuel stated: The surplus becomes consecrated only after [the wife's] death.  R. Adda b. Ahabah stated: The surplus is consecrated while she is still alive.  [In considering this statement] R. Papa argued: In what circumstances?  If it be suggested: Where [the husband] allows her maintenance  and also allows her  a silver ma'ah  for her other requirements,  what [it may be retorted] is the reason of those who stated that it 'becomes consecrated only after [the wife's] death'?  If, however, it is a case where [the husband] does not allow her maintenance and does not allow her a silver ma'ah for her other requirements, what [it may be objected] is the reason of him who stated that 'it is consecrated while she is still alive'? — This is a case indeed  where he does allow her maintenance; but does not allow her a silver ma'ah for her other requirements. Rab and Samuel are of the opinion that [the Rabbis] have ordained