Ketubot 48a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

this is what they expound from the words

“her sustenance and her clothing”: according to her sustenance —

give her clothing.

That is to say,

that he should not give her

to his wife

not

garments

of a young woman,

which are wide

to an old woman,

because a burden is difficult for her, and she cannot bear wide garments.

And

likewise

not

shall he give

those of an old woman,

which are narrower,

to a young woman,

because she needs wide garments in which to adorn herself.

And from

“her clothing and her appointed time”

they expound:

according to her appointed time,

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

give her clothing.

That is to say,

that he should not give

garments

new ones in the hot season,

because they are warmer than worn garments.

And he should not

give

worn ones in the rainy season,

because new garments are warmer.

Rav Yosef taught: “Her sustenance” —

this is closeness of flesh.

That is to say,

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

And we say that the words of Rav Yosef

support Rav Huna.

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

intercourse

except

when

I am in my clothing and she is in her clothing” —

he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: Even the poorest man in Israel, and so forth.

By implication, the first Tanna holds

that

these,

two flutes and a dirge woman —

he should not

give!

What are the circumstances?

If it is her custom,

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

what is the reason of the first Tanna, who says “not”?

And if it is not her custom, what is the reason of Rabbi Judah

who says that he must give them to her?

And we explain:

It is necessary [to state this] in a case where it is his custom,

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

but it is not her custom

[of the members of her family].

The first Tanna holds: When we say

that we learn from the verse “the wife of a husband” that the woman

rises with him —

these words apply during his lifetime,

for example, if he says that she should nurse her child herself, and she does not wish to. And it is the practice of the daughters of her family to nurse, but the daughters of his family do not nurse themselves; then we say that she rises with him, to his level, and does not nurse.

But after death —

not

do we say this, and therefore he need not give her two flutes and a dirge woman.

And Rabbi Judah holds: Even after death

we say that she rises with him, and therefore he must give her in accordance with the practice of his family.

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

And Rav Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: One who became insane,

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

the court enters his properties, and feeds and supports

[with garments and clothing]

his

wife, and his sons and daughters, and something else

[and below it will be explained what “something else” is].

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is different

about this case, in which he became insane,

from that which is taught: One who went overseas, and his wife claims maintenance

from the properties that he left, the law is that

the court enters his properties, and feeds and supports his wife, but not

his

sons and daughters, and not something else?!

He said to him: Do you not distinguish for me between

the one who went overseas, who

leaves knowingly,

and

the

one who became insane, who

leaves unknowingly

?!

Certainly there is a distinction between them. For the one who went overseas could have instructed before he left that they should support his wife and sons and daughters. And since he did not instruct [them], he revealed his mind that he does not wish to support them. Therefore, with regard to his wife, to whom he became obligated through the conditions of the ketuba, his properties became pledged for her support. But his sons and daughters — not.

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

What is “something else”?

Rav Hisda said: This is an adornment

[perfumes with which women adorn themselves].

Rav Yosef said:

This is

charity.

And we say:

The one who says

that they do not give her

an adornment,

even though through this she becomes disheveled, because they do not give it to her,

all the more so

they do not give

charity

from his properties.

And

if

the one who says

that

charity

they do not give,

but an adornment —

we give it to her,

and even though he did not instruct this, we are certain

that he is not pleased that she become disheveled.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rav Huna: One who went overseas, and his wife died, the court enters his properties and buries her according to his honor.

And we question: Only

according to his honor

do 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 rise with him after death, in any event she does not descend with him!

And we explain:

Say:

They do not bury her only according to her honor, but

also according to his honor,

if his is greater. And

this he teaches us

Rav Huna: that she

rises with him and does not descend with him —

even after death.

Rav Mattena said: One who says

at the time of his death:

If

his wife

dies, “Do not bury her from my properties” —

they heed him.

For since he dies during her lifetime, and she collects her ketuba, he is not obligated to bury her. As we learned below [95b]: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketuba, are obligated in her burial.”

And we object:

What is different when he says

so, that we say

that the properties fall before the orphans,

and it is not incumbent upon them to bury her, whereas

when he does not say

so,

also,

in the end

the properties lie before the orphans

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

Rather,

so Rav Mattena said:

One who says

about himself:

If he dies —

“Do not bury him from his properties,

but from charity,”

they do not heed him .

Because

it is not within his power to enrich his sons

by their not having to expend expenses for his burial —

and cast

himself

upon the community.