Ketubot 63b — the Talmud in English

Rather, according to the one who says

she is rebellious

with regard to work

, is a

sick woman subject to work

, that one could say that if she does not wish to perform work, she is “rebellious”?!

Rather,

in light of this difficulty, the Gemara explains their dispute differently:

If she withholds herself

from marital relations, everyone agrees that she is rebellious

, and the beraita is dealing with a rebellious wife with regard to marital relations.

They disagree

whether the amoraim also consider a rebellious wife

with regard to work

to have the status of a rebellious wife:

One—

Rav Huna—

held: With regard to work, she is not rebellious.

And the other—

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina—

held: With regard to work as well, she is rebellious.

With regard to the matter itself,

we learned at the beginning of the beraita cited above:

A woman who rebels against her husband, they deduct seven dinars per week from her ketubba. Rabbi Yehuda says:

seven terapaikkim.

Our Rabbis

subsequently convened and decided

that they should not leave her subject to gradual deductions from her ketubba, little by little each week. Rather, they should cause her to forfeit her entire ketubba, and this is done only after:

They announce concerning her

in synagogues and study halls [as follows:]

four Sabbaths

[specifically],

one after the other.

And the court sends her

a message twice, before and after the announcements [as the Gemara explains below], saying:

“Know! Even if

your

ketubba

is

one hundred maneh,

if you persist in your rebellion,

you have forfeited

all of it.”

It is the same for me—

that she has the legal status of a rebellious wife—whether she is

betrothed, and

it is the same for me whether she is

married, even if she is menstruating, even if she is ill, and even if she is a widow awaiting levirate marriage,

as was explained above.

He

wondered

to Shmuel, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef,

about the statement of the beraita, which includes even a menstruating woman among rebellious wives with regard to marital relations:

But

is a menstruating woman subject to marital relations,

that rebellion should be relevant to her?!

He

answered

him,

Shmuel replied to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef:

“One who

fasts and

has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who

fasts and

does not have bread in his basket.”

A menstruating woman is likewise considered by him like one who has bread in his basket, since he is certain that she will immerse at the end of her menstrual period and become permitted to him. This is not so when she rebels against him.

Rami bar Ḥama said

to explain the beginning of the beraita that we learned: “They announce concerning her for four Sabbaths, one after the other”:

They announce concerning her only in synagogues and study halls.

Rava said: This is also precise

in accordance with the words of Rami bar Ḥama, from

what it teaches: “Four Sabbaths, one after the other.”

Therefore they announce concerning her on the Sabbath, since on the Sabbath the people are idle from work and are present in synagogues and study halls, and there they announce concerning her.

And we conclude:

Conclude from it!

And further,

Rami bar Ḥama said:

This is how one should explain what we learned in the beraita: “And they send her”:

Tw

o

times they send her

a message

from the court: once before the announcement and once after the announcement.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught: The halakha is in accordance with our Rabbis,

that nothing is deducted from her ketubba; rather, she forfeits all of it after the announcement!

Rava said: This

—the matter taught by Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda—

is burkha,

an improper ruling!

He

wondered

to him, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak,

to Rava:

“What is wrong with it?”

What is improper about this ruling?!

But

I

am the one who

—

and I told it to him in the name of a great man [I said it in the name of a great man],

and in whose name [who is that great man]?

I told it to him in the name of a great man,

and who is he

?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina!

The Gemara explains:

And he

—Rava, who objected to this ruling—

in accordance with whom did he hold?

It is like this, as it was stated:

Rava said

in the name of

Rav Sheshet: The halakha is—

we consult with her!

That is, the halakha is not in accordance with our Rabbis, who cause her to forfeit her entire ketubba at once. Rather, the halakha is in accordance with our Mishna: they delay giving her a divorce, and repeatedly appeal to her to retract, while in the meantime deducting seven dinars per week from her ketubba.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said

in the name of

Rav Sheshet: The halakha is

in accordance with our Rabbis in the beraita, who say that

we do not consult with her

by delaying her divorce. Rather, she forfeits her entire ketubba at once, after the court’s message has been sent to her twice and after the announcement.

The Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances of a “rebellious wife”

with whom one acts according to the law of our Mishna or according to the statement of our Rabbis?

Ameimar said:

It is specifically when

she said

to her husband:

“I want him, but I will cause him distress,”

meaning: I want him to remain my husband, but I rebel against him in order to cause him distress. In that case, we compel her not to rebel against him by deducting from her ketubba.

But if

she

said

to her husband:

“My husband is repulsive to me,”

and I need neither him nor his ketubba—

we do not compel her [we do not compel her] to remain with him. Rather, we compel him to give her a bill of divorce without a ketubba.

— то есть не принуждаем ее оставаться с ним; напротив, принуждаем его дать ей развод без выплаты брачного документа.

Mar Zutra said:

Even if she said, “My husband is repulsive to me,”

we compel her

to remain with him, and we do not compel him to give her a bill of divorce, even without a ketubba.

There was an incident

involving a woman who said, “My husband is repulsive to me,” and

Mar Zutra compelled her

to continue living with him as husband and wife by deducting from her ketubba, and he did not compel her husband to divorce her.

And

eventually,

there emerged from him [from her husband, through this woman]

— от ее мужа, благодаря этой женщине, —

Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura [and Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura emerged from him].

— у них родился рабби Ханина из Суры.

The Gemara adds:

But that is not so;

one cannot infer from the fact that Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura was born to them that her husband should not be compelled to divorce her!

For

there, it was Divine assistance

that enabled peace to prevail between them, but it is not usual for a woman who finds her husband repulsive to return to living with him peacefully.

His daughter-in-law

of Rav Zevid rebelled [his daughter-in-law, the wife of Rav Zevid’s son, rebelled against her husband], saying, “My husband is repulsive to me,”

and she was leaving without a ketubba.

She had seized one garment

[she had seized one garment] that she had brought to him as part of her dowry, which was among the iron-sheep assets. Likewise, she had other garments in her possession that she had brought to him as iron-sheep assets, but she had not seized them.

Ameimar

[they were sitting]

was sitting with Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi, and Rav Gamda was sitting with them

[and Rav Gamda was sitting with them], and

they were sitting and saying

[they were saying]:

She rebelled

against her husband, saying, “My husband is repulsive to me,” —

—

even

her existing worn-out garments!

It is not enough that she forfeits the payment secured by the husband’s guarantee in the event that the iron-sheep assets she brought to him are lost; even if the assets still exist—for example, the worn-out clothing that she brought to him—she does not take them with her. Rather, she leaves them with her husband.

Therefore, Rav Zevid’s daughter-in-law must give her husband all the garments that she possesses as iron-sheep assets.

Rav Gamda said to them:

But

because Rav Zevid

—the woman’s father-in-law—

is a great man,

do you

flatter him

[are you flattering him] by saying that his daughter-in-law must return to him even the garment that she has seized?!

But

ведь

Rav Kahana said: Rava raised the question

and was uncertain

about

whether a woman who says, “My husband is repulsive to me,” forfeits her existing worn-out garments,

and he did not resolve it.

He found no solution to this uncertainty. How, then, can you rule that she forfeits even the garment that she has seized, when we have an established principle: “The burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to extract property from another”?!

Some say

that the incident did not take place in this manner. Rather,

Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting and saying:

A woman who

rebelled

by saying, “My husband is repulsive to me”—

does not forfeit her existing worn-out garments;

therefore, all the garments that are iron-sheep assets belong to her.