Ketubot 64a (סד.) — the Talmud in English

And so

Rav Gamda said to them:

But what?

Just 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 ruling against him], and ruling that even those garments which she is not holding need not be given to her husband?!

A

different

one,

Rav Kahana said: Rava was raising this as a question,

Rava was uncertain about this law,

and did not resolve it.

Since this question was not resolved, the garment that she is holding is not taken from her, because “the one who seeks to extract from another bears the burden of proof,” and it is impossible to extract it from her. But as for the garments that she is not holding, why should you cause Rav Zevid’s son to lose them, taking them from him unlawfully?!

The Gemara concludes:

Now, since neither position has been stated—

since the question of whether a rebellious wife who claims, “He is repulsive to me,” forfeits her worn garments that remain in existence has not been resolved—therefore:

If

she has seized

the worn garments that remain in existence, claiming, “He is repulsive to me,”

we do not take them from her

we do not extract them from her due to the doubt].

But if

she has not seized

her worn garments,

we do not

give them to her

we do not give them to her]; rather, the husband takes them.

Here the Gemara returns to explaining the fundamental law of a woman who says, “He is repulsive to me,” and adds:

We keep her waiting for twelve months of the year until the giving of a bill of divorce

we wait twelve months until he is compelled to give her a bill of 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, she receives no sustenance from the husband].

Rav Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said:

“We write a rebellious-wife document”

for a betrothed woman

who says, “I do not wish to marry,”

but

however,

we do not write a rebellious-wife document for a yevama awaiting levirate marriage

who says, “I do not wish to enter levirate marriage,” because a woman who rebels against levirate marriage does not thereby become a rebellious wife.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Shmuel’s words from the beraita mentioned above:

As it was taught:

It is the same for me whether she is betrothed or

the same for me whether she is

married,

for they are considered “rebellious wives,”

and even a menstruating woman,

and

even a sick woman, and even a yevama awaiting levirate marriage!

It is evident that even a yevama who refuses to enter levirate marriage is included among rebellious wives?!

And we answer:

This is not difficult!

Here—

the beraita in which we learned that even a yevama who refuses to enter levirate marriage is included among rebellious wives—is discussing a case where

he demanded

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

Here—

Shmuel, who said that a rebellious-wife document is not written for a yevama—is discussing a case where

she demanded

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

And Shmuel teaches us that a rebellious-wife document is not written against the levirate husband in order to add to the yevama’s marriage settlement; her law is not like that of a woman whose husband rebels against her, in which case an addition is made to her marriage settlement.

For Rav Tahlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said:

If he demanded

that his yevama enter levirate marriage,

the court attends to his claim

to write a rebellious-wife document against her.

But if

she demanded

that the levirate husband perform levirate marriage with her,

the court does not attend to her claim

to write a rebellious-wife document against him.

The Gemara questions this explanation of Shmuel’s words, who said, “We write a rebellious-wife document for a betrothed woman, but we do not write a rebellious-wife document for a yevama,” meaning when he is the one who rebels:

In what context did you establish

this statement

that

said

Shmuel

that a rebellious-wife document is not written for a yevama?—

When she demanded

that the levirate husband enter levirate marriage with her, and he rebels.

According to your explanation, the first part of Shmuel’s statement as well, “We write a rebellious-wife document for a betrothed woman,” must be understood as referring to a case where she demanded that her betrothed marry her, and he rebels by refusing to take her in marriage.

But this is impossible. For according to you,

this—

the woman whom Shmuel mentioned when he said that

we write a rebellious-wife document “for a betrothed woman”—

is not the correct wording!

For writing a rebellious-wife document “against a betrothed woman” means that a rebellious-wife document is written for the betrothed man against his betrothed, who does not wish to marry him. But according to you, Shmuel is not discussing writing a rebellious-wife document against the betrothed woman; rather, he is discussing a rebellious-wife document against the betrothed man, who does not wish to marry his betrothed.

And according to you, he should have said, “We write a rebellious-wife document

for the betrothed woman”—

that is what he should have said

to Shmuel! For writing a rebellious-wife document “for the betrothed woman” means that the husband rebels against her, and the betrothed woman is given the rebellious-wife document against the betrothed man?!

And we answer:

That is not difficult.

For

teach—

you must emend Shmuel’s statement and alter his wording so that it says that we write a rebellious-wife document

“for the betrothed woman”

and not “against a betrothed woman”].

The Gemara further questions the explanation of Shmuel’s words as referring to a case where she demands marriage and he rebels against her:

What is different about a yevama, for whom we do not

write a rebellious-wife document, because

we say to her: Go away; you are not commanded!

go your way, for you are not commanded to enter levirate marriage, because you are not commanded regarding procreation, and you cannot demand that he perform levirate marriage with you].

If so,

a betrothed woman as well,

we should not write a rebellious-wife document for her. Rather,

let us say to her: Go away,

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

you are not commanded

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

Rather,

you might say that Shmuel’s statement that we write a rebellious-wife document for a betrothed woman, despite the fact that she is not commanded regarding procreation, applies

in

a case where she

comes with a claim,

that she needs him to marry her,

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

I need a staff in my hand and a spade 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 this. For according to this,

so too,

the continuation of Shmuel’s statement, concerning

a yevama,

who said that a rebellious-wife document is not written for her, must be understood in the same manner:

in

a yevama who

comes with a claim,

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

And if she comes with a claim, why should a rebellious-wife document not be written for her? After all, she needs a son just as the betrothed woman does!

Rather,

because of this difficulty, the Gemara gives another answer to the difficulty concerning Shmuel’s statement, “We do not write a rebellious-wife document against a yevama,” from the beraita that says that even a yevama is included among rebellious wives when she refuses to enter levirate marriage:

Both this and that,

both the beraita and Shmuel’s statement, are discussing a case where

he demanded

that she enter levirate marriage and she rebels against him.

And there is no difficulty,

no contradiction between them:

Here—

in the beraita—the case is where he demanded that she

remove her shoe

and she wishes only to enter levirate marriage; in that case, a rebellious-wife document is written for him.

And here—

in Shmuel’s statement—the case is where he demanded

to perform levirate marriage,

but she does not wish to enter levirate marriage and wants only the removal of the shoe, in which case a rebellious-wife document is not written for her.

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the reason for this distinction.

For Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

If the levir demanded

of his yevama

the removal of the shoe,

and she prevents this because she wishes levirate marriage, then the court

attends to his claim.

But if

the levir demanded

that he wishes

to perform levirate marriage,

and she does not wish to enter levirate marriage but wants the removal of the shoe,

the court does not

attend to

his claim

to compel her to enter levirate marriage by writing a rebellious-wife document against her. Rather, he must remove her shoe, since his intention in levirate marriage is not for the sake of the mitzva, but because he desires her as a wife.

The Gemara asks:

What is different

when the levir demands

to perform levirate marriage

and the yevama refuses to enter levirate marriage and wants the removal of the shoe,

that we do not

write a rebellious-wife document against her, because

we say to him,

to the levir: You lose nothing through her refusal to enter levirate marriage with you, because you have another option—

“Go, and marry another woman”

go and take another wife].

If so, when the levir demands

the removal of the shoe

from his yevama and she refuses to have the shoe removed,

also

a rebellious-wife document should not be written for him against her, since he loses nothing through this; rather,

let us say to him,

let us tell him:

“Go, and marry another woman”?!

Rather,

you might say that the court attends to his claim when he demands the removal of the shoe because

the levir says:

The levir says:

“Since she is bound to me” \-

“they do not give me another woman”

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

it is impossible to say this, because if so,

here too,

when he demands that she enter levirate marriage with him, we should attend to his claim and write a rebellious-wife document against her, because the levir will say:

“Since she is bound to me”—

“they do not give me another woman?!”

Rather,

the Gemara answers the difficulty concerning Shmuel’s statement from the beraita in another manner:

Both this and that—

the beraita and Shmuel’s statement—are discussing a case where he

demanded levirate marriage. And there is no difficulty.

Here—

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

like the “first Mishna”,

in the past, when levirate marriage took precedence over the removal of the shoe, as the Gemara will explain below.

Here—

Shmuel’s statement that she is not considered rebellious—is

like the later Mishna,

now, when the removal of the shoe takes precedence over levirate marriage.

As we learned: The mitzva of levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of the removal of the shoe.

When does this apply?

Formerly,

in the past, when

they intended it for the sake of the mitzva.

But

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

the Sages that

the mitzva of the removal of the shoe takes precedence over 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 dinars deducted from her marriage settlement each week; Rabbi Yehuda says: seven terafik. And similarly, when a husband rebels against his wife, three dinars are added to her marriage settlement each week; Rabbi Yehuda says: three terafik.

Until when does he continue deducting?

And similarly, when a husband rebels against his wife, three dinars are added to her marriage settlement each week; Rabbi Yehuda says: three terafik. The Gemara explains:

What are “terafik”?

Rav Sheshet said:

Each terafik is an

ashtira,

which is a “provincial sela.”

And how much

is an

ashtira worth?

Half a zuz

in Tyrian coinage [half a Tyrian zuz]. This is three Tyrian ma’ot, since a zuz contains six ma’ot.

It follows that a terafik is three silver Tyrian ma’ot.

Tyrian coinage is worth eight times as much as provincial coinage.

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

It was taught likewise: Rabbi Yehuda says: three terafik

per week,

which are nine ma’ot

since each terafik is three ma’ot],

one and a half ma’a per day.

But for Shabbat, nothing is added to her marriage settlement.

He said—

Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef challenged

Shmuel:

What is different about him,

the husband against whom his wife rebelled,

that we give him the amount for Shabbat,

when she rebels against him, seven terafik are deducted from her marriage settlement, namely, one terafik per day, and it follows that a deduction is also made for Shabbat?

And what is different about her,

when an addition is made to her marriage settlement when he rebels,

that we do not give her the amount for Shabbat,

that nothing is added to her marriage settlement for Shabbat, as Rabbi Yehuda said: one and a half ma’a per day?!

And we answer:

She,

the woman,

whose marriage settlement is being reduced,

for her marriage settlement is reduced when she rebels,

does not appear as “Shabbat wages”,

it does not appear as payment of “Shabbat wages” to her husband when her marriage settlement is reduced.