Ketubot

turned pale in the face, took up with his finger [some food from the dish and] put it to his mouth. 'You have spoilt the King's meal' [the table-steward]  cried. 'Why did you do such a thing?' he was asked [by the King's officers].  'The man who prepared that dish',  he  replied, 'has rendered the King's food objectionable'. 'Why?' they asked him. 'I noticed', he replied, 'a piece of leprous swine  flesh in it'. They examined [the dish] but did not find [such a thing]. Thereupon he took hold of his finger and put it on it,  saying, 'Did you examine this part?' They examined it and found it [to be as R. Ashi had said]. 'Why did you rely upon a miracle?' the Rabbis asked him. 'I saw', he replied, 'the demon of leprosy hovering over him'. A Roman once said to a woman, 'Will you marry me?' — 'No,' she replied. Thereupon  he brought some pomegranates, split them open and ate them in her presence. She kept on swallowing all the saliva  that irritated her, but he did not give her [any of the fruit] until [her body] became swollen.  Ultimately he said to her, 'If I cure you, will you marry me?' — 'Yes', she replied. Again  he brought some pomegranates, split them and ate them in her presence. 'Spit out at once, and again and again',  he said to her, all saliva that irritated you'. [She did so] until [the matter] issued forth from her body in the shape of a green palm-branch; and she recovered. AND WORKING IN WOOL. Only IN WOOL but not in flax. Whose [view then is represented in] our Mishnah? — It is that of R. Judah. For it was taught: [Her husband] may not compel her to wait  upon his father or upon his son, or to put straw before his beast;  but he may compel her to put straw before his herd.  R. Judah said: Nor may he compel her to work in flax because flax causes one's mouth to be sore  and makes one's lips stiff.  This refers, however, only to Roman flax. R. ELIEZER SAID: EVEN IF SHE BROUGHT HIM A HUNDRED BONDWOMEN. R. Malkio stated in the name of R. Adda b. Ahabah: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. Said R. Hanina the son of R. Ika: [The rulings concerning] a spit,  bondwomen  and follicles  [were laid down by] R. Malkio; [but those concerning] a forelock,  wood-ash  and cheese  [were laid down by] R. Malkia. R. Papa, however, said: [If the statement is made on] a Mishnah or a Baraitha [the author is] R. Malkia [but if on] a reported statement  [the author is] R. Malkio. And your mnemonic  is, 'The Mishnah  is queen'.  What is the practical difference between them?  — [The statement on] Bondwomen.  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID etc. Is not this the same view as that of the first Tanna?  — The practical difference between them [is the case of a woman] who plays with little cubs  or [is addicted to] checkers. STUDENTS MAY GO AWAY  TO STUDY THE TORAH, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION [OF THEIR WIVES FOR A PERIOD OF] THIRTY DAYS; LABOURERS [ONLY FOR] ONE WEEK. THE TIMES FOR CONJUGAL DUTY PRESCRIBED IN THE TORAH  ARE: FOR MEN OF INDEPENDENCE,35  EVERY DAY; FOR LABOURERS, TWICE A WEEK; FOR ASS-DRIVERS,36  ONCE A WEEK; FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS,  ONCE IN THIRTY DAYS; FOR SAILORS,38  ONCE IN SIX MONTHS. THESE ARE THE RULINGS OF R. ELIEZER. GEMARA. What is the reason of Beth Shammai?  — They derive their ruling from [the law relating to] a woman who bears a female child.  And Beth Hillel? — They derive their ruling from [the law relating to] one who bears a male child.  Why should not Beth Hillel also derive their ruling from [the law relating to] a woman who bears a female child?  — If they had derived their ruling from [the law relating to] a woman who bears a child they should indeed have ruled thus, but [the fact is that] Beth Hillel derive their ruling from [the law of] the menstruant.  On what principle do they  differ? — One  is of the opinion that the usual  [is to be inferred] from the usual,  and the other  is of the opinion that what a husband has caused  should be derived from that which he has caused. Rab stated: They  differ only in the case of one who specified [the period of abstention] but where he did not specify the period it is the opinion of both that he must divorce her forthwith and give her the kethubah. Samuel, however, stated: Even where the period had not been specified the husband may delay [his divorce],  since it might be possible for him to discover some reason  for [the remission of] his vow.  But surely, they  once disputed this question; for have we not learned: If a man forbade his wife by vow to have any benefit from him he may, for thirty days, appoint a steward,  but if for a longer period he must divorce her and give her the kethubah. And [in connection with this] Rab stated: This ruling applies only where he specified [the period] but where he did not specify it he must divorce her forthwith and give her the kethubah, while Samuel stated: Even where the period had not been specified the husband may also postpone [his divorce],  since it might be possible for him, to discover some grounds  for [the annulment of his vow]?  — [Both disputes are] required. For if [their views] had been stated in the former  only it might have been assumed that only in that case did Rab maintain his view, since [the appointment] of a steward is not possible but that in the second case  where [the appointment] of a steward is possible he agrees with Samuel. And If the second case  only had been stated it might have been assumed that only in that case did Samuel maintain his view  but that in the former case  he agrees with Rab. [Hence both statements were] necessary. STUDENTS MAY GO AWAY TO STUDY etc. For how long [may they go away] with the permission [of their wives]? — For as long as they desire.