Ketubot 107b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains:

The one who says

that they do not provide her with

an adornment,

even though there is room to say that he is pleased that his wife adorns herself,

all the more so charity

—that we do not know his wish, they do not collect from his properties.

But

the one who says

that

charity

is not collected from his properties can hold that only charity is not collected.

But an adornment, we provide her with it, for it is not agreeable to him

her husband

that she be disgraced.

Ta shma

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

The yevama,

a woman whose husband died and left no offspring, and her deceased husband has a brother, she either performs yibum with him or undergoes halitza from him; and as long as he has not performed halitza for her [or performed yibum with her], she is forbidden to marry outside, and she is called “a woman awaiting yibum”—

During the first three months she is sustained from

the properties

of her husband

the deceased.

From here onward—

she is not sustained either from

the properties

of her husband, nor from

the properties

of the yavam.

And if

the yavam stood

the yavam

in judgment,

that the yevama demanded that he take her in marriage or perform halitza for her,

and fled —

she is sustained

from now

from the property of the yavam!

But this yavam who fled, even though he is obligated in her maintenance from the time she brought him to judgment that he should take her in marriage or release her, how do we collect the maintenance from his property? For according to Shmuel, his law should be like that of a husband who went overseas, where there is concern that perhaps he deposited funds with her, or perhaps she agreed with him to support herself from the proceeds of her labor!?

Shmuel could say to you: For what should we be concerned in this case,

this yavam who fled, so as not to sell from his property in order to sustain her?

If because of deposited funds—

his mind is not close

of the yavam

to her

his yevama, for she is still not his wife.

If because of the proceeds of her labor,

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

is not bound to him

the yavam with regard to the proceeds of her labor, so why would she agree to support herself from them and forgo her maintenance!?

Ta shma

against Shmuel from another beraita that we learned in the Tosefta:

For it was taught:

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

and returned alone,

and said, “My husband has died”—

If she wished—

she is sustained

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

If she wished—

she collects her ketuba,

but she is not sustained from his properties.

And if she said,

“My husband divorced me”—

she

is supported and continues until the amount of her ketuba!

And it is proven that we do not fear the concerns of Shmuel!

And the Gemara rejects:

Here too,

also here it is speaking

when they heard that he had died.

And should you say: if they heard that he had died, she can indeed be sustained from his properties as long as she has not collected her ketuba, even if the maintenance was worth more than her ketuba.

And what is different,

why did the tanna change here from the rule concerning every widow and establish that she is sustained only

until “the amount of her ketuba”?

It may be said that here it is different, since

she, it is she who caused the loss to herself!

She caused herself the loss of maintenance beyond her ketuba, for she said that her husband had divorced her, and according to her words she is not entitled to maintenance at all, because a divorcee has no maintenance; rather, she can collect it as payment for her ketuba, up to the amount of the ketuba.

Ta shma

another proof against Shmuel from that which was taught:

How did they say, “A meana’at [

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

has no maintenance”?

You cannot say this concerning

a minor who

sits under her husband,

and has not yet performed mi’un with her husband,

for her husband is obligated in maintenance.

Rather, for example, her husband went overseas,

and she

borrowed

money for her maintenance,

and ate,

and after she ate, she

stood and performed mi’un

with her husband, and therefore she has no maintenance.

And we have to infer from the beraita:

The reason

that she loses maintenance is because

she performed mi’un

with him, and she is no longer his wife, and she uprooted her marriage retroactively, and it emerges that maintenance did not reach her.

Had she not performed mi’un

with him, and she came to request her maintenance while her husband was overseas—

we provide her with

maintenance!

Shmuel could say to you: Here,

with a minor—

for what should we be concerned?

If because

perhaps her husband deposited with her

funds—

he does not deposit funds with a minor!

And if because

she agreed with him to support herself from

the proceeds of her labor—

a minor cannot provide.

She cannot provide enough work for her support, and he cannot say this to her, for she will not agree.

And the Gemara considers:

What came of it?

What was the halakha established concerning maintenance?

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: An incident came before Rabbi at Beit She’arim, and he ruled that she be given maintenance.

And a similar incident came

before Rabbi Yishmael in Sepphoris, and he did not rule that she be given maintenance.

Rabbi Yohanan wondered: And what did Rabbi Yishmael see, that he did not rule that she be given maintenance?

Did the sons of the High Priests and Hanan disagree only concerning an oath? But maintenance, we provide her with it!

Rav Shaman bar Abba said to him

to Rabbi Yohanan:

Our master Shmuel

already explained and established it

in Babylonia,

that our Mishna is speaking

when they heard that he had died.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan: With this formulation,

you have solved it in all this extent,

you have found a solution to reconcile all the places from which there is proof against Shmuel.

When Ravin came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

the opposite:

An incident came before Rabbi at Beit She’arim, and he did not rule that she be given maintenance.

Before Rabbi Yishmael in Sepphoris, and he ruled that she be given maintenance.

Rabbi Yohanan said: What did Rabbi see, that he did not rule that she be given maintenance?

For Hanan and the sons of the High Priests disagreed only concerning an oath, but maintenance, we provide her with it!

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 solved it in all this extent.

And the Gemara now brings several practical laws:

A.

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

B.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Huna in the name of Rav, for Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman can say to her husband, “I do not wish to be sustained, and I do not wish to work.”

C.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Zevid concerning

the matter of vessels of

kunya,

which are earthenware vessels coated with lead.

For Rav Zevid said: These vessels of kunya,

earthenware vessels coated with lead, if they are

white,

white,

and black—

they are permitted.

The lead coating prevents absorption into the earthenware, and there is no concern with them either on account of leaven on Passover, or concerning absorption from “the purgings of gentiles,” that is, forbidden foods, or concerning wine of idolatrous libation.

And if they are

green,

where a substance is mixed into the lead through which the food seeps through the lead coating into the earthenware—

they are forbidden.

And we said this

that they are permitted

only when they have no cracks,

that there are no cracks in the lead coating.

But when they have cracks—

they are forbidden,

since they absorb through the cracks.

Mishna:

One who went overseas,

and left his wife without maintenance,

and one person arose and supported his wife —

Hanan says: He has lost

the man

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 must swear

the man

how much he spent

on the maintenance of this man’s wife,

and he shall take

the maintenance money from the husband.

And so

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

Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Hanan has spoken well! He has placed his money on the horn of a deer!

Gemara:

We learned there: One who is forbidden by vow to derive benefit from his fellow,

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