Ketubot 64a — the Talmud in English

And so

Rav Gamda said:

But is it so?

Because Rav Zevid is a great man—

and therefore he will not challenge your words when you rule against him—

you have reversed the law against him

[you are reversing the law against him], and ruling that even those cloaks which she is not holding, she need not give to her husband!?

A

nd

he

Rav Kahana said: Rava was asking about it

Rava was uncertain about this law,

and did not resolve it.

And since this question was not resolved, the cloak which she is holding is not taken from her, since “the one who seeks to take from his fellow bears the proof,” and it is impossible to take it from her. But the cloaks which she is not holding, why do you cause Rav Zevid’s son to lose, taking them from him unlawfully!?

And the Gemara concludes:

Now, since it was not stated neither this way nor that way

since the question whether a rebellious woman who claims “He is repulsive to me” loses her existing worn garments was not resolved, therefore:

If

she seized

the existing worn garments, the woman who says “He is repulsive to me,”—

we do not take them from her

[we do not take them from her because of the doubt].

And if

she did not seize

the woman her garments—

we do not

give them to her

[we do not give them to her], but the husband takes them.

And here the Gemara returns to explain the essential law of the woman who says “He is repulsive to me,” and adds:

And we delay her twelve months of the year for a divorce

[we wait twelve months for her until they compel him to give a divorce], perhaps she will retract.

And during those twelve months of the year, she has no sustenance from the husband

[and during those twelve months of the year, she has no sustenance from the husband].

Rav Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said:

We write a “letter of rebellion”

for a betrothed woman

who said “I do not want to marry,”

but

however,

we do not write a “letter of rebellion” for a yevama

who said “I do not want to perform levirate marriage,” for a woman who rebels against levirate marriage does not thereby become a rebellious woman.

It was objected

against Shmuel’s words from the beraita mentioned above:

For it was taught:

A betrothed woman is the same for me and

the same for me

a married woman,

for they are considered “rebellious women,” and

even a menstruating woman,

and

even a sick woman, and even a yevama!

And it is demonstrated that even a yevama who refuses to perform levirate marriage is included as a rebellious woman!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult!

Here

the beraita in which we learned that even a yevama who refuses to perform levirate marriage is included as a rebellious woman is speaking when

he demanded

that she perform levirate marriage, and she refuses and rebels against him.

Here

Shmuel, who said that one does not write a letter of rebellion for a yevama, is speaking when

she demanded

that he perform levirate marriage with her, and he refuses and rebels against her.

And Shmuel teaches us that one does not write a letter of rebellion against the levirate husband in order to add to the yevama’s ketubah, and her law is not like the law of a woman against whom her husband rebelled, for whom they add to her ketubah.

For Rav Tahlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said:

He demanded

from his yevama that she perform levirate marriage—

we attend to him

to write a letter of rebellion against her.

But

she demanded

from the levirate husband that he perform levirate marriage with her—

we do not attend to her

to write a letter of rebellion against him.

And the Gemara expresses astonishment at the explanation of Shmuel’s words, who said, “We write a letter of rebellion for a betrothed woman, but we do not write a letter of rebellion for a yevama”—namely, when he is the rebel:

In what did you establish

[in what circumstance did you establish]

this

that

Shmuel

said that one does not write a letter of rebellion for a yevama?—

When she demanded

from the levirate husband that he perform levirate marriage, and he rebels.

And according to your words, also what Shmuel said at the beginning of his words, “We write a letter of rebellion for a betrothed woman,” you must establish as referring to when she demanded from the betrothed man that he marry her, and he rebels by not wishing to take her in marriage.

And this is impossible. For according to your words,

this

the one whom Shmuel mentioned in his words, that

we write a letter of rebellion “against a betrothed woman,”

is not a correct expression!

For writing a letter of rebellion “against a betrothed woman” means that they write for the betrothed man a letter of rebellion “against [opposing] his betrothed woman,” who does not wish to marry him. But according to your words, Shmuel is not speaking of writing a letter of rebellion against the betrothed woman, but of a letter of rebellion against the betrothed man, who does not wish to marry his betrothed woman.

And according to your words, “We write a letter of rebellion

for the betrothed woman”—

he should have said

this to Shmuel! For writing a letter of rebellion “for the betrothed woman” means that the husband rebels against her, and they give the betrothed woman the letter of rebellion against the betrothed man!?

And we answer:

That is not difficult.

For

read

you should correct Shmuel’s words and change his wording, so that he said that they write a letter of rebellion

“for the betrothed woman”

[and not “against a betrothed woman”].

And the Gemara further expresses astonishment at the explanation of Shmuel’s words, that it refers to when she demands marriage and he rebels against her:

What is different about a yevama, that they do not

write a letter of rebellion for her, because

we say to her: Go, you are not commanded!

[Go on your way, for you are not commanded to perform levirate marriage, because you are not commanded concerning procreation, and you cannot demand that he perform levirate marriage with you].

And if so,

a betrothed woman also,

they should not write a letter of rebellion for her, but

let us say to her: Go,

go on your way, for you are not commanded to marry him, since

you are not commanded

concerning procreation, and you cannot demand that he marry you!?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that what Shmuel said, that they write a letter of rebellion for a betrothed woman, even though she was not commanded concerning procreation, is

in

a case where she

comes on the basis of a claim,

for she needs him to marry her,

as she says: “I need a staff for my hand and a hoe for my burial”

[I need a staff in my hand and a digging tool for burial]. That is, I need a son to support me in my old age and bury me after my death—it is impossible to say so. For according to this,

here too,

also the continuation of Shmuel’s words, concerning

a yevama,

who said that they do not write a letter of rebellion for her, must be established in the same manner,

in

a yevama who

comes on the basis of a claim,

that he should perform levirate marriage with her, since she needs a son to support her in her old age and bury her.

And if she comes on the basis of a claim, why should they not write a letter of rebellion for her? After all, she needs a son just like the betrothed woman!

Rather,

by virtue of this objection, the Gemara answers the objection to Shmuel’s words in another manner—Shmuel said, “They do not write a letter of rebellion against a yevama”—from the beraita which says that even a yevama is included among rebellious women when she refuses to perform levirate marriage:

Both this and that,

both the words of the beraita and the words of Shmuel, speak of when

he demanded

that she perform levirate marriage and she rebels against him.

And there is no difficulty,

no contradiction between them:

Here

in the beraita—it is speaking of when he demanded from her

to perform halitza,

and she wishes only to perform levirate marriage; in that case they write a letter of rebellion for him.

And here

in Shmuel’s words—it is speaking of when he demanded

to perform levirate marriage,

and she does not wish to perform levirate marriage but only to perform halitza, in which case they do not write a letter of rebellion for her.

And further on the sugya, the Gemara discusses the reason for this distinction.

For Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

The levirate husband demanded

from his yevama

to perform halitza,

and she prevents it because she wishes levirate marriage—in that case the court

attends to him.

But if

the levirate husband demanded

that he wishes

to perform levirate marriage,

and she does not wish to perform levirate marriage but wishes halitza—

the court does not

attend to him

to compel him

to perform levirate marriage by writing a letter of rebellion against her; rather, he performs halitza for her, since his intention in levirate marriage is not for the sake of the mitzva, but because he desires her as a wife.

And the Gemara expresses astonishment:

What is different

if the levirate husband demanded

to perform levirate marriage

and the yevama refuses to perform levirate marriage but wishes to perform halitza,

that they do not

write a letter of rebellion against her, because

we say to him,

to the levirate husband: You lose nothing through her refusal to perform levirate marriage with you, because you have another possibility—

Go, and marry another woman

[go, and take another woman in marriage].

If so, when the levirate husband

demanded to perform halitza

with his yevama, and she refuses to perform halitza,

also

they should not write a letter of rebellion against her, because he loses nothing through this, but

let us say to him,

let us say to him:

Go, and marry another woman!?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that this is why they attend to him when he demanded halitza, because

he says,

the levirate husband:

Since she is bound to me—

they do not give me another one

[since my yevama is bound to me, therefore they do not give me another woman to marry]—

it is impossible to say this, because if so,

here too,

when he demanded that she perform levirate marriage with him, we should attend to him to write a letter of rebellion against her, because the levirate husband will say:

Since she is bound to me—

they do not give me another one!?

Rather,

the Gemara answers the objection to Shmuel’s words from the beraita in another manner:

Both this and that

the beraita and Shmuel’s words—speak of when he demanded

to perform levirate marriage. And there is no difficulty.

Here

the beraita, which considers her a rebellious woman when he demands levirate marriage, holds

according to the “first Mishna”,

in the past, when levirate marriage preceded halitza, as the Gemara will explain below.

Here

Shmuel’s words, that she is not considered a rebellious woman, are

according to the later Mishna,

now, when halitza precedes levirate marriage.

For we learned: The mitzva of levirate marriage precedes the mitzva of halitza.

In what case are these words said?

In the beginning,

in the past, when

they intended for the sake of the mitzva.

But

now, when they do not intend for the sake of the mitzva, they said

the Sages that

the mitzva of halitza precedes the mitzva of levirate marriage.

And this is the “later Mishna.”

We learned in the Mishna: A woman who rebels against her husband has seven dinarim deducted from her ketubah each week; Rabbi Yehuda says, seven terpaikim.

Until when does he deduct?

And likewise, concerning a husband who rebels against his wife, they add three dinarim to her ketubah each week; Rabbi Yehuda says, three terpaikim. And the Gemara explains:

What are “terpaikim”?

Rav Sheshet said:

Every terpaik is an

astira,

which is a “state sela.”

And how much

is an

astira worth?

Half a zuz

in Tyrian silver [half a Tyrian zuz]. This is three Tyrian maot, since a zuz contains six maot.

And it follows that the terpaik is three Tyrian silver maot.

Tyrian silver is worth eight times as much as state silver.

And since a sela contains four zuz, it follows that half a Tyrian zuz is equal to one state sela.

It was taught likewise: Rabbi Yehuda says: three terpaikim

per week,

which are nine maot

[for each terpaik is three maot],

one and a half maot for each day.

But for Shabbat, they do not add to it.

He said

in astonishment

to Shmuel, Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef:

What is different for him,

the husband against whom his wife rebelled,

that we give him the amount for Shabbat,

when she rebels against him, they deduct seven terpaikim from her, that is, a terpaik for each day, and it follows that they also deduct for Shabbat.

And what is different for her,

when they add to hers when he rebels,

that we do not give her the amount for Shabbat,

they do not add for her for Shabbat, as Rabbi Yehuda said: one and a half maot for each day!?

And we answer:

She,

the woman,

for she is being deducted,

for her ketubah is reduced when she rebels,

does not appear as “Shabbat wages”,

this does not appear as payment of “Shabbat wages” to her husband when they reduce her ketubah.