Ketubot 48a (מח.) — the Talmud in English

“Her clothing” — as its plain meaning. “Her marital relations” — these are sustenance. And similarly it says: “He afflicted you and let you hunger.” Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

This is how they expound the words

“her sustenance and her clothing”: In accordance with her sustenance—

give her clothing.

This means

that he should not give her

to his wife

not

clothing

of a young woman,

which is loose

to an elderly woman,

because the weight is difficult for her and she cannot tolerate loose clothing.

And

likewise

he should not

give her

that of an elderly woman,

which is narrower,

to a young woman,

because she requires loose clothing in order to adorn herself with it.

And from

“her clothing and her conjugal rights”

they expound:

In accordance with her conjugal season,

according to the season, whether it is hot or cold—

give her clothing.

This means

that he should not give

clothing

new clothing in the summer,

because it is warmer than worn clothing.

And he should not

give her

worn clothing in the rainy season,

because new clothing is warmer.

Rav Yosef taught: “Her sustenance”—

this refers to intimate closeness.

This means

that he should not conduct himself with her in the manner of the Persians, who engage in marital relations while clothed.

And we say that Rav Yosef’s statement

supports Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: One who says, “I do not wish

to engage in marital relations

except

when

I am wearing my clothes and she is wearing her clothes”—

he must divorce her and give her her ketuba.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest person in Israel, and so on.

By implication, the first tanna holds

that

these,

two flute players and a professional mourner—

he should not

give her!

What are the circumstances?

If it is her customary practice,

that this is the practice of the members of her family,

what is the reason for the first tanna, who says that he should not?

And if it is not her customary practice, what is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that he must provide them for her?

And we explain:

No, it is necessary to state this ruling in a case where it is his customary practice,

as this is the practice of the members of the husband’s family,

but it is not her customary practice

of the members of her family.

The first tanna holds: When we say

that we learn from the verse “a married woman” that a wife

ascends with him—

and does not descend with him, this applies during his lifetime,

as, for example, when he says that she should nurse her child herself, and she does not wish to do so. The women of her family customarily nurse, but the women of his family do not nurse their children themselves. In that case, we say that she ascends with him, to his status, and she need not nurse.

But after his death—

no,

we do not say this, and therefore he need not provide her with two flute players and a professional mourner.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Even after his death

we say that she ascends with him, and therefore he must provide for her according to the practice of his family.

Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: In the case of one who became insane,

and can no longer manage his household or support his family,

the court enters his property and provides food and support

including clothing and garments

for

his wife, his sons and daughters, and another matter

the nature of which will be explained below.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is different

about this case, in which he became insane,

from that which is taught in a beraita: In the case of one who went overseas, and his wife claims sustenance

from the property he left behind, the law is that

the court enters his property and provides food and support for his wife, but not

for

his sons and daughters, and not another matter?!

He said to him: Do you not distinguish between

one who went overseas, who

leaves knowingly,

he

and

one who became insane, who

leaves unknowingly,

he?!

Certainly there is a distinction between them. In the case of one who went overseas, he could have instructed them before leaving to support his wife and sons and daughters. Since he gave no such instruction, he revealed his intention that he did not wish to support them. Therefore, with regard to his wife, whom he became obligated to support by the conditions of the ketuba, his property became subject to providing for her. But with regard to his sons and daughters—it did not.

That is not so in this case, where he became insane. He left the world unknowingly, and presumably he would have been pleased for his wife and sons and daughters to be supported; therefore, they provide support for them.

What is “another matter”?

Rav Ḥisda said: This is adornment

perfumes with which women adorn themselves.

Rav Yosef said:

This is

charity.

And we say:

The one who says

that they do not provide her with

adornment,

even though she becomes unkempt as a result of not providing it for her,

all the more so

they do not provide

charity

from his property.

But

if

the one who says

that

charity

is not provided,

but adornment—

we do provide it for her,

and even though he did not instruct them to do so, we have clear grounds to say

that he would not be pleased for her to become unkempt.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rav Huna: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife died, the court enters his property and buries her according to his honor.

And we challenge this: Is it specifically

according to his honor

that they bury her

and not according to her honor,

even if her honor is greater? But even according to the one who says that she does not ascend with him after his death, in any event she does not descend with him!

And we explain:

Say:

They bury her not only according to her honor, but

even according to his honor,

if his is greater. And

this teaches us

Rav Huna’s ruling, that she

ascends with him and does not descend with him—

even after his death.

Rav Mattana said: With regard to one who says

at the time of his death:

If

his wife

dies, do not bury her from his property—

we heed him.

Since he died during her lifetime and she collects her ketuba, he is not obligated to bury her. As we learned below [95b]: “Her heirs, who are the heirs of her ketuba, are obligated to bury her.”

And we challenge this:

What is different when he says

this, such that we say

that the property falls before the orphans,

and it is not incumbent upon them to bury her?

When he did not say

this

as well,

ultimately,

the property lies before the orphans

by virtue of inheritance, and surely it is not incumbent upon them to bury her!

Rather,

this is what Rav Mattana said:

With regard to one who says

about himself:

If he dies—

do not bury him from his property,

but from charity—

we do not heed him.

Because

it is not within his power to enrich his sons

by ensuring that they will not have to incur expenses for his burial

and cast

himself

upon the community.