Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth

Folio 58a

a gambler¹  the sale is still valid.²  What else is there?³  [Only that the slave might be found to have been] an armed robber or one proscribed by the government;⁴  but such characters are generally known.⁵

Consider! Whether according to the [explanation of the one] Master⁶  or according to that of the other Master⁷  she⁸  is not permitted to eat [terumah], what then is the practical difference between them? — The difference between them [is the case where her intended husband] accepted [her defects,⁹  or where her father] delivered [her to the intended husband's agents]¹⁰  or went¹¹  [with them].¹⁰

R. TARFON SAID: ALL [THE SUSTENANCE] FOR SUCH A WOMAN MAY BE GIVEN OF TERUMAH etc. Abaye stated: The dispute¹²  applies only to the daughter of a priest¹³  who was betrothed to a priest but with respect to the daughter of an Israelite¹⁴  who was betrothed to a priest all¹⁵  agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food¹⁶  and one half of terumah.

Abaye further stated: Their dispute¹²  relates to one who¹⁷  was only betrothed,¹⁸  but in respect of a married woman¹⁹  all¹⁵  agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food²⁰  and one half of terumah.²⁰  So it was also taught: R. Tarfon said, All [the sustenance] for such a woman is given of terumah. R. Akiba said, One half of consecrated food and one half of terumah — This²¹  applies only to the daughter of a priest who was betrothed to a priest, but with respect to the daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest all²²  agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food and one half of terumah. This,²¹  furthermore, applies only to one who²³  was only betrothed but in respect of a married woman²⁴  all²²  agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food²⁵  and one half of terumah.²⁵  R. Judah b. Bathyra said, She is supplied with two thirds²⁶  of terumah and one third of unconsecrated food. R. Judah said, All [her sustenance] is given to her in terumah²⁷  and she sells it and purchases unconsecrated food out of the proceeds.²⁸  R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, Wherever terumah was mentioned²⁹  [the woman] is to be given [a supply equal to] twice the quantity of unconsecrated victuals.³⁰  What is the practical difference between them?³¹  — The difference between them [is the question of the woman's] trouble.³²

A LEVIR [WHO IS A PRIEST] DOES NOT CONFER [UPON HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH. What is the reason? — The All-Merciful said, The purchase of his money³³  while she is the purchase of his brother.³⁴

IF SHE HAD SPENT SIX MONTHS WITH HER HUSBAND. Now that you stated [that even if she spent the full twelve months less one day] WITH THE HUSBAND [she is] not [permitted to eat terumah] is there any need [to mention also] WITH THE LEVIR?³⁵  — This is a case³⁶  [of anti-climax:]

'This, and there is no need to say that'.³⁷  THIS [WAS THE RULING ACCORDING TO] AN EARLIER MISHNAH etc. What is the reason?³⁸  — 'Ulla, or some say R. Samuel b. Judah, replied: Owing to a bodily defect [that might subsequently be detected].³⁹  According to 'Ulla⁴⁰  one can well understand [the respective rulings of the earlier,⁴¹  and the later rulings],⁴²  the former⁴¹  being due to the possibility that a cup [of terumah] might be offered⁴³  to her in the house of her father,⁴⁴  and the latter to [the possibility of] the detection of a bodily defect.⁴⁵

1. So Tosaf. s.v. [H], and cf. [G], 'gambler'; [G]; 'a crafty person' (contra Rashi's interpretation, 'kidnapper').
2. Lit., 'he reached him'. Slaves being known to possess such characters a buyer of a slave is presumed to have accepted the inevitable.
3. That might be given as a reason for the cancellation of the sale.
4. Sentenced to death.
5. Lit., 'they have a voice', and the buyer must have known the circumstances before he bought him and must have consented to have him despite his unsavoury character.
6. 'Ulla.
7. R. Samuel.
8. The daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest.
9. Once he consented to overlook them he cannot again advance them as a reason for the annulment of the betrothal. In such a case R. Samuel's explanation is not applicable while that of 'Ulla is.
10. Cf. supra 48b. As she does not any longer live with her father's family 'Ulla's reason does not apply while that of R. Samuel does.
11. Himself or his agents.
12. That of R. Tarfon and R. Akiba.
13. Who is familiar with the restrictions of terumah and would, therefore, abstain from eating it during the days of her Levitical uncleanness when consecrated food is forbidden to her.
14. Who may be ignorant of the restrictions appertaining to terumah.
15. Even R. Tarfon.
16. For consumption during the days of her uncleanness.
17. Being the daughter of a priest.
18. Her father with whom she lives during the period of her betrothal might well be relied upon that, as a priest, he would duly supervise her observance of the laws of terumah and would, during her uncleanness, himself, or through her brothers, sell her terumah and purchase for her with the proceeds unconsecrated food.
19. Who does not live with her husband (cf. infra 64b).
20. Being alone she might not be able to arrange for the sale of her terumah during her uncleanness, and might consequently be apt to consume the consecrated food forbidden to her.
21. The difference of opinion.
22. V. p. 342, n. 10.
23. Being the daughter of a priest.
24. V. p. 342. n. 14.
25. V. p. 342, n. 15.
26. Lit., 'portions'.
27. But, unlike R. Tarfon who allows only as much terumah as if it were unconsecrated victuals, R. Judah allows a larger quantity of terumah (which is cheaper) so that its proceeds should suffice for the purchase of the required quantity of ordinary food.
28. Lit., 'money'.
29. In the subject under discussion.
30. Tosef. Keth. V. ab. init.
31. R. Judah and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.
32. In the selling of her terumah. It is difficult to sell terumah (the buyers of which, being priests only, are naturally few) and it must be offered at a very low price. To save the woman trouble R. Gamaliel allows her terumah double the quantity of unconsecrated victuals so that by reducing the price of the former by a half she would easily dispose of it and be able to acquire with the proceeds her required ordinary victuals. R. Judah, however, makes no provision for saving her trouble, and allows her only a slight margin of terumah above that of ordinary food estimated at the current prices.
33. Lev. XXII, 11, v. also supra p. 340, n. 5; only such may eat terumah.
34. She does not become his own wife before he acquired her through the levirate marriage.
35. I.e., OR ALL OF THEM WITH THE LEVIR LESS ONE DAY WITH HER HUSBAND etc. If when one day only of the twelve months was not spent with the husband she does not acquire the privilege of eating terumah, how much less would such a privilege be acquired when all the period less one day was not spent with the husband!
36. Lit., 'he taught'.
37. Lit., 'this, and he need not tell this'.
38. Of the later Beth din.
39. V. supra p. 341, nn. 3-4.
40. Who (supra 75b) gave as the reason for the ruling of the earlier Mishnah that the woman might allow her relatives to drink of her cup of terumah.
41. Forbidding terumah during the first twelve months also permitting it after the expiration of that period.
42. Which extends the prohibition until the entry into the bridal chamber.
43. V. supra p. 340, n. 6.
44. And she might allow her relatives to drink from it (v. supra note 6). As this would not happen after the twelve months when the intended husband, becoming liable for her maintenance and desirous of preventing her from giving away his victuals to her relatives in her father's house, provides for her an abode of her own, the woman was permitted to eat terumah.
45. V. supra p. 341, n. 3. Hence the extension of the prohibition until the entry into the bridal chamber.

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 Master¹  is of the opinion that an examination by others²  is regarded as effective,³  while the other Master⁴  holds the opinion that an examination by others is not regarded as effective.⁵

MISHNAH. IF A MAN CONSECRATED HIS WIFE'S HANDIWORK,⁶  SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO WORK AND TO CONSUME [THE PROCEEDS HERSELF].⁷  [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS⁸  [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.⁹  R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR RULED: IT REMAINS UNCONSECRATED.⁹

GEMARA. R. Huna stated in the name of Rab:¹⁰  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 fundamental¹¹  while [the assignment of the proceeds of] her handiwork [to her husband] was due [only to their desire for preventing] ill-feeling.¹²  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.¹³

An objection was raised: Maintenance [for a wife] was provided in return for her handiwork!¹⁴  — Read: Her handiwork was assigned [to her husband] in return for her maintenance.

May it be suggested that [our Mishnah] provides support for his¹⁵  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 able¹⁶  to] provide maintenance?¹⁷  — 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]?¹⁸  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,'¹⁹  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,²⁰  how much less then [would this apply to] his wife?²¹  — It²²  was necessary [as an introduction to] the final clause: [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.²³  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 reason²⁴  is because he is of the opinion that a man may consecrate that which has not yet come into existence²⁵  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 hands²⁶  be consecrated to Him who created them'. But, surely, he²⁷  did not use such an expression!²⁸  — Since R. Meir was heard to state that a man does not utter his words to no purpose,²⁹  [the expression the husband used here]³⁰  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 halizah³¹  from thee', she, R. Meir ruled, is legally betrothed!³²  — From that [Baraitha] the inference³³  may indeed be drawn;³⁴  from this, [our Mishnah], however, it cannot be inferred.³⁵

[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.³⁶  R. Adda b. Ahabah stated: The surplus is consecrated while she is still alive.³⁷  [In considering this statement] R. Papa argued: In what circumstances?³⁸  If it be suggested: Where [the husband] allows her maintenance³⁹  and also allows her⁴⁰  a silver ma'ah⁴¹  for her other requirements,⁴²  what [it may be retorted] is the reason of those who stated that it 'becomes consecrated only after [the wife's] death'?⁴³  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 indeed⁴⁴  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

1. The author of the earlier Mishnah.
2. Lit., 'outside'. Which the man would naturally arrange at the expiry of the twelve months when he becomes liable for her maintenance.
3. I.e., after such an examination a man can no longer refuse to marry the woman on the ground of the subsequent detection in her of some bodily defect. Hence his ruling (v. supra p. 344. n. 7).
4. I.e., the authorities of the latter ruling.
5. And the man may cancel the engagement. Hence the prohibition to eat terumah until the entry into the bridal chamber when the man himself has the opportunity of ascertaining the condition of her body.
6. Which partly belongs to him (v. infra 64b).
7. The reason is given infra.
8. Of the proceeds in excess of the sum required for her maintenance.
9. The reason is given infra.
10. The Hebrew equivalent of the last five words is wanting in the corresponding passage in B.K. 8b.
11. Since a woman cannot always earn sufficient for her maintenance.
12. Between husband and wife.
13. As the Rabbinical enactment aimed at the benefit of the woman only, she may well decline that favour if she is so minded.
14. Which belongs to her husband (supra 47b). This implies that the assignment of a wife's handiwork to her husband was the original provision.
15. R. Huna's.
16. And, indeed, also desires to do so. Cf. Rashi and Tosaf. s.v. [H].
17. And since he is nevertheless precluded from consecrating her handiwork it follows, as R. Huna ruled, that a wife is entitled to refuse maintenance and to retain her right over her work.
18. That he has no right to consecrate her handiwork which does not belong to him!
19. B.K. 87b, supra 43a, Git. 12a.
20. Deut. XV, 16.
21. What need then was there to state the obvious?
22. The first clause which is indeed self-evident.
23. Though he does not maintain her.
24. For giving a husband the right of consecrating his wife's handiwork.
25. Such as the woman's work before she has performed it.
26. Which, of course, were in existence at the time of the consecration. Thus it has been shown that according to Resh Lakish it is the opinion of R. Meir that a husband has the right to compel his wife to work.
27. The husband.
28. He did not say 'Your hands', but 'Your handiwork'.
29. V. 'Ar. 5a.
30. Since it would serve no purpose at all in the form he used it.
31. V. Glos
32. When the respective conditions are fulfilled, though at the time of the betrothal they were still unfulfilled (Yeb. 92b, 93b, B.M. 16b). This then shows that a man can legally dispose even of that which is not yet in existence.
33. V. n. 7 final clause.
34. Lit., 'yes'.
35. Since the reason may well be the one given supra by Resh Lakish.
36. When her husband inherits her estate.
37. As soon as it is produced.
38. Could the two opposing views be justified.
39. Whereby he acquires the right to her earnings.
40. Every week.
41. V. Glos.
42. Whereby he acquires the right to the surplus of her earnings in excess of the sum required for her maintenance, cf. infra 64b.
43. Since the husband is entitled to both her earnings and the surplus the consecration should take effect even while she is alive.
44. Lit., 'for ever'; 'always'.