Ketubot

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,