Ketubot 107b (קז:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains:

The one who says

that she is not provided with

jewelry,

despite there being reason to say that he is pleased for his wife to adorn herself,

all the more so charity

—whose wishes we do not know—his property is not seized to provide it.

But

the one who says

that

charity

is not collected from his property may hold that only charity is not collected.

But jewelry, we provide her with, since he would not want

his wife

to be disgraced.

Come and hear

another proof against Shmuel, from what we learned in tractate Yevamot [41b]:

The yevama,

a woman whose husband died without leaving offspring, and whose deceased husband has a brother, must either enter into levirate marriage with him or perform halitza with him. Until he performs halitza with her [or enters into levirate marriage with her], she is forbidden to marry anyone else, and she is called a shomeret yavam—

For the first three months she is sustained from

the property

of her

deceased husband.

From then onward—

she is not sustained either from

the property

of her

deceased husband,

or from the property of the yavam.

And if

the yavam stood

the yevama’s

before the court,

after the yevama demanded that he either take her in levirate marriage or perform halitza with her,

and he fled —

she is sustained

from that point onward

from the property of the yavam!

But this yavam who fled, despite being obligated to provide her sustenance from the time she brought him before the court to take her in levirate marriage or release her, how do we collect the sustenance from his property? According to Shmuel, his case should be like that of a husband who went overseas, in which case we must be concerned that perhaps he already gave her money for her sustenance, or perhaps she agreed with him to support herself through the products of her labor!?

Shmuel could say to you: Why should we be concerned in this case

—a yavam who fled so as not to sell property of his to provide her sustenance?

If it is because of the money he may have given her—

the yavam’s mind is not close

to

her,

his yevama, since she is not yet his wife.

If it is because of the products of her labor,

that he told her to support herself from them and she agreed—behold, the yevama

is not subjugated to him

with regard to the products of her labor; why, then, would she agree to support herself from them and relinquish her sustenance?

Come and hear

another proof against Shmuel from another baraita that we learned in the Tosefta:

For it was taught:

A woman who went with her husband overseas, and she came

back alone

and said, “My husband has died”—

If she wishes—

she is sustained

from her husband’s property, but she does not collect her ketuba.

If she wishes—

she collects her ketuba,

but she is not sustained from his property.

And if she said,

“My husband divorced me”—

she

is supported and continues to receive support until the amount of her ketuba!

This proves that we do not entertain Shmuel’s concerns!

The Gemara rejects this:

Here too,

the case is one

in which they heard that he had died.

And lest you say: If they heard that he had died, she should be able to be sustained from his property as long as she had not collected her ketuba, even if the value of the sustenance exceeded the value of her ketuba,

what is different here

—why did the tanna deviate here from the rule applying to every widow and establish that she is sustained only

“until the amount of her ketuba”?

One can say that here it is different, since

she herself is the one who caused herself the loss!

She caused herself to lose sustenance beyond the amount of her ketuba, since she said that her husband had divorced her. According to her own statement, she is not entitled to sustenance at all, because a divorcee is not entitled to sustenance; rather, she may collect those funds as payment toward her ketuba, up to the amount of the ketuba.

Come and hear

another proof against Shmuel from that which was taught:

How did they state, “A minor who refuses [

a minor whom her brothers or mother married through a rabbinic marriage

—is not entitled to sustenance”?

You cannot say that this refers to a

minor who

is living with her husband,

and has not yet refused her husband,

for her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance.

Rather, it is a case in which her husband went overseas,

and she

borrowed

money for her sustenance

and ate,

and after she had eaten, she

stood up and refused

her husband, and therefore she is not entitled to sustenance.

And we should infer from the baraita:

The reason

that she loses her sustenance is

that she refused

him, and is no longer his wife, thereby retroactively uprooting her marriage; it follows that she was never entitled to sustenance.

But if she did not refuse

him, and came to request her sustenance while her husband was overseas—

we provide her with

sustenance!

Shmuel could say to you: Here,

in the case of

a minor—why should we be concerned?

If it is because

her husband may have given her

money—

one does not give money to a minor!

And if it is because

she agreed with him to support herself from the

products of her labor—

a minor cannot provide for herself.

She is not capable of working enough to support herself, and he cannot tell her this, because she would not agree.

The Gemara asks:

What conclusion was reached?

What is the ruling concerning sustenance?

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: An incident came before Rabbi in Beit She’arim, and he ruled that she was to receive sustenance.

And a similar incident came

before Rabbi Yishmael in Tzippori, and he did not rule that she was to receive sustenance.

Rabbi Yohanan wondered: What did Rabbi Yishmael see that made him not rule that she was to receive sustenance?

Did not the dispute between the sons of the High Priests and Hanan concern only an oath? But sustenance, we provide her!

Rav Shaman bar Abba said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

Our master Shmuel already explained

and established the matter

in Babylonia,

that our Mishna is speaking

when they heard that he had died.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan: With this interpretation,

you have resolved all of it,

you have found a solution that reconciles all the places from which one might prove against Shmuel.

When Ravin came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

the opposite:

An incident came before Rabbi in Beit She’arim, and he did not rule that she was to receive sustenance.

Before Rabbi Yishmael in Tzippori, and he ruled that she was to receive sustenance.

Rabbi Yohanan said: What did Rabbi see that made him not rule that she was to receive sustenance?

For Hanan and the sons of the High Priests disputed only with regard to an oath, but sustenance, we provide her!

Rav Shaman bar Abba said to him: Shmuel already explained it in Babylonia: When they heard that he had died.

He said to him: You have resolved all of it.

And the Gemara now presents several practical halakhot:

a.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav, and we rule that sustenance is provided to a married woman.

b.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Huna in the name of Rav, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman can say to her husband, “I do not want to be sustained by you, and I will not perform labor for you.”

c.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Zevid concerning

vessels of

kunya,

which are earthenware vessels coated with lead.

For Rav Zevid said: These kunya vessels,

earthenware vessels coated with lead, if they are

white,

that is, white,

or black—

they are permitted.

The lead coating prevents absorption into the earthenware, and there is no concern regarding them either because of hametz on Pesaḥ, or with regard to absorption from the “heave-offerings of gentiles,” meaning forbidden foods, or with regard to wine libation.

But if they are

green,

because a substance mixed into the lead causes food to seep through the lead coating into the earthenware—

they are forbidden.

And we said

that they are permitted

only when they have no kartofanei,

when there are no cracks in the lead coating.

But if they do have kartofanei—

they are forbidden,

since they absorb through the cracks.

Mishna:

With regard to one who went overseas,

and left his wife without sustenance,

and another person undertook to support his wife —

Hanan says: This man has lost

his

money,

and he cannot claim it from the husband, for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara.

The sons of the High Priests disagreed with him and said: He should take an oath

as to how much

he spent

on this man’s wife’s sustenance,

and take

the value of the sustenance from the husband.

And so

Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said, in accordance with their words.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan has stated well! He has placed his money on the antelope’s horn!

Gemara:

We learned there: One who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from another,

such as when both of them prohibited themselves by vow from benefiting from one another [according to Rashi on the following folio]—