Ketubot

which is her handiwork  R. Akiba ruled [that it belongs] to herself, how much more so her find? For we learned: [If a woman said to her husband,] 'Konam, if I do aught for your mouth', he need not invalidate her vow;  R. Akiba, however, said: He must invalidate it, since she might do more work than is due to him!  — Reverse then: A wife's find belongs to her husband, but R. Akiba ruled [that it belonged] to herself. But surely, when Rabin came  he stated in the name of R. Johanan: In respect of a surplus  obtained through no undue exertion all  agree that [it belongs to the] husband, and they only differ in respect of a surplus  obtained through undue exertion; the first Tanna being of the opinion [that even this belongs] to her husband while R. Akiba maintains [that it belongs] to herself!  — R. Papa replied: A find is like a surplus gained through undue exertion,  [concerning which there is] a difference of opinion between R. Akiba and the Rabbis. R. Papa raised the question: What is the law where she performed for him two [kinds of work] simultaneously?  Rabina raised the question: What is the ruling where she did three or four [kinds of work]  simultaneously? — These must remain undecided. [ANY COMPENSATION FOR] INDIGNITY OR BLEMISH [THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INFLICTED UPON] HER. Raba son of R. Hanan demurred:  Now then,  if a man insulted his fellow's mare would he also have to pay him [compensation for the] indignity? But is a horse then susceptible to insult?  — This, however, [is the objection:] If a man spat on his fellow's garment would he  also have to pay him [compensation for this] indignity? And should you say that [the ruling] is really so,  surely [it can be retorted] we have learned: If a man spat so that the spittle fell upon another person, or uncovered the head of a woman, or removed a cloak from a person he must pay four hundred zuz;  and R. Papa explained: This has been taught [to apply] only [where it touched] him  but if it touched his garment only [the offender] is exempt!  — [An insult] to his garment involves no indignity to him, [but an insult to] his wife does involve an indignity to him. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Now then,  If a man insulted a poor man of a good family where all the members of the family are involved in the indignity, must he also pay [compensation for] indignity to all the members of the family?  — The other replied: There  it is not their own persons [that are insulted]. Here, however, one's wife is [like] one's own body. MISHNAH. IF A MAN UNDERTOOK TO GIVE A FIXED SUM OF MONEY TO HIS SON-IN-LAW AND HIS SON-IN-LAW DIED,  HE  MAY, THE SAGES RULED, SAY  'I WAS WILLING TO GIVE [THE MENTIONED SUM] TO YOUR BROTHER BUT I AM UNWILLING TO GIVE IT TO YOU'. IF A WOMAN UNDERTOOK TO BRING HER HUSBAND  ONE THOUSAND DENARII HE MUST ASSIGN TO HER  A CORRESPONDING SUM OF FIFTEEN MANEH.  AS A CORRESPONDING SUM FOR APPRAISED GOODS,  HOWEVER, HE ASSIGNS  ONE FIFTH LESS.  [IF A HUSBAND IS REQUESTED TO ENTER IN HIS WIFE'S KETHUBAH:] 'GOODS ASSESSED AT ONE MANEH', AND THESE ARE IN FACT WORTH A MANEH,  HE CAN HAVE [A CLAIM FOR] ONE MANEH ONLY.  [OTHERWISE,  IF HE IS REQUESTED TO ENTER IN THE KETHUBAH:] 'GOODS ASSESSED AT A MANEH', HIS WIFE MUST GIVE HIM [GOODS OF THE ASSESSED VALUE  OF] THIRTY-ONE SELA'S AND A DENAR,  AND IF 'AT FOUR HUNDRED [ZUZ]', SHE MUST GIVE [HIM GOODS VALUED  AT] FIVE HUNDRED [ZUZ.]  WHATEVER