Ketubot 65b — the Talmud in English

And is

this tanna

of our Mishna,

a messenger

stripped naked and

stripped bare and wearing sandals [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text]!?

?!

Abaye said to

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

the tanna

of our Mishna

is speaking of a place of mountains,

he is dealing with a woman who lives in a mountainous place,

for it is impossible [for her] without three pairs of shoes [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text]. But for new clothing she has no need except from year to year.

. But she needs new clothing only once a year.

And incidentally [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text]

,

the tanna teaches us

the tanna,

that he should give them to her on the festival, so that she should have joy in them [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text].

—he should renew her shoes on the Festival, so that she will take pleasure in them.

We learned in the Mishna:

and garments of fifty zuz

from year to year:

Abaye said:

the fifty zuz that we learned are

fifty

plain zuz [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text], [the] state zuz, which are one-eighth of Tyrian silver.

[state zuzim], which are one-eighth of a Tyrian silver zuz.

From what—from where [do we know] that the intention is not Tyrian silver?

do we know that the reference is not to Tyrian silver?

And we explain:

from the fact that it teaches

in the latter clause of our Mishna:

In what case are these words said? In a poor person of Israel; but with regard to an honored person, everything is according to his honor.

Thus, our Mishna is dealing with a poor person of Israel—

And if it enters your mind

that

“fifty zuz”

are fifty zuz

actually, of Tyrian silver, which is very expensive, then

Tyrian silver zuzim, which are very valuable, then

a poor person—

from where does he have fifty zuz!?

From where does a poor person of Israel have fifty zuz with which to give her clothing of this value!?

Rather,

certainly

learn from it: [they are] fifty plain zuz.

We learned in the Mishna:

and they do not give her new [garments]

in the summer, nor worn ones in the winter; rather, he gives her garments of fifty zuz in the winter, and she covers herself with their worn-out remnants in the summer, and the worn-out garments are hers:

The Sages taught:

The surplus of sustenance—

for example, a woman who is not voracious and does not need the entire measure stated in our Mishna—it returns

to the husband.

The surplus of worn-out garments—

belongs to the woman,

as we learned in our Mishna: “and the worn-out garments are hers.”

And the Gemara wonders:

The surplus of worn-out garments belongs to the woman—

why does she need it?

That is to say: why are they hers? Since he gives her new garments, why should she not return the worn-out garments to the husband!?

Rav Reḥava said:

because

she covers herself with them,

with the worn-out garments,

during the days of her menstruation, so that she should not become repulsive to her husband

if, during the days of her purity, she were to wear those same garments that she wears during the days of her menstruation.

Abaye said: We have received [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text]: Even though the surplus of the worn-out garments of a woman who is nourished by her husband belongs to her, nevertheless

that although the surplus of the worn clothing of a woman who is supported by her husband belongs to her, nevertheless

the surplus of the worn-out garments of a widow

which she received from the heirs—for they are obligated to give her new garments of fifty zuz from year to year, from the property that they inherited from their father—they return

to his heirs.

And the reason for the distinction between the surplus of the worn-out garments of a woman who is nourished by her husband and a woman who is nourished from the orphans is:

For

there—

with regard to a woman nourished by her husband—the reason that they belong to her

is

because of

so that she should not become repulsive before him [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text], as explained above.

[so that she will not appear repulsive to her husband], as explained above.

But

here—

when she is nourished from the orphans—

let her become repulsive and let her become repulsive.

We learned in the Mishna:

he gives her a silver coin

for her needs, and she eats with him from one Friday night to the next Friday night:

The Gemara explains:

What is “she eats”?

Rav Naḥman said: She eats

with him

literally,

on Friday night, and he should not support her through a third party.

Rav Ashi said: “She eats” means

“She eats” means

marital intercourse,

and even if he is a camel-driver or a sailor, for whom he is not obligated regarding ona once a week, nevertheless, since he supports her through a third party, he must visit her from one Friday night to the next.

And the Gemara raises an objection from the wording with which

we learned

in our Mishna:

“She eats” with him on Friday night!

Granted, according to the one who says “eating”

literally,”

this is why it teaches “she eats.”

But according to the one who says

that it means

“marital intercourse,” why did it state “she eats”?

And the Gemara answers:

It is an elegant expression

it is [a clean expression]. And

as

we find

that it is written: “She ate [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text]

she committed adultery]

and wiped her mouth, and said: ‘I have not committed iniquity.’”

We raise an objection

from that which was taught:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She eats

with him

on Friday night, and [on] Shabbat

during the day!

Granted, according to the one who says “she eats” is

that “she eats” is

eating

literally,

this is why it teaches “and [on] Shabbat.”

But according to the one who says “she eats” means

that “she eats” means

marital intercourse,

the difficulty is: is

marital intercourse on Shabbat

during the day

possible!?

But did Rav Huna not say: The Jewish people are holy, and they do not engage in marital intercourse during the day!?

And we answer:

Rava said: In a darkened house it is permitted.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if she was nursing,

they reduce from her handiwork and add to her sustenance:

Rabbi Ulla the Great expounded at the entrance of the house of the Nasi [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text]:

[at the entrance to the Nasi’s house]:

Even though they said: A person does not nourish his sons and daughters when they are minors—

but he does nourish

the father his sons and daughters when they are

very young,

and they compel him to do so.

And the Gemara explains Ulla’s words:

Until what age

are the children called “very young,” such that their father is obligated to nourish them?

Until the age of six,

and

as [in the statement] of Rav Asi!

For Rav Asi said: A minor

until

the age of six goes out with the eruv

of the domain-limits

of his mother,

he is drawn after his mother’s eruv, and she takes him with her to the side where she placed her eruv, even if his father placed an eruv in another direction. And the reason is that he needs his mother, and the Sages assigned him after his mother.

We have thus learned that until six he needs his mother; therefore, just as the husband nourishes his wife, so does he nourish her son with her.

From what—from where do we learn that a person must nourish his children when they are very young?

do we learn that a person must support his very young children?

From the fact that it teaches

in our Mishna: “And if

she was nursing, they reduce from her handiwork and add to her sustenance.”

And

what is the reason

that they add to her sustenance?

Is it not

that

because he needs to eat with her [unclear: the source’s explanatory bracket is not part of the direct Gemara text]? [That is,] her son needs to eat with his mother. And what we learned, “a nursing woman,” is not specifically so, but anyone whose son is with her!

[because her child needs to eat with his mother]? And the term “nursing” is not meant literally; rather, the same applies to any woman whose child is with her!

And we challenge the proof from our Mishna:

Perhaps

the reason they add to her sustenance is

because she is ill!?

And the Gemara resolves the proof:

If so—

that the reason is because she is ill—

let it teach

in our Mishna:

“If she was ill.”

What [is the reason],

why did the tanna state

“if she was nursing”?

Rather, certainly [it is] because her son needs to eat together with her.

And the Gemara rejects the resolution, and consequently the proof:

Perhaps, this is what it teaches us

our Mishna:

that ordinary nursing women are ill!?

It was stated: What does he add to her?—

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: They add to her

to the nursing woman

wine,

because

wine is beneficial for milk.

We will return to you, chapter “Even though.”

Introduction

Above [on folio 46b] the rights of the husband toward his wife were explained, and among other things it was explained that the husband acquires his wife's found object, and her handiwork.

Our Mishna, after opening with the laws taught above, deals with the question of whether the husband is entitled to the payments for his wife's injury. For we learned in tractate Bava Kamma [83b] that one who injures another is liable for five matters: damage, pain, medical treatment, loss of work [payment for the loss of the possibility of working and receiving wages for it during the illness], and humiliation. And from now it is necessary to consider: to whom do the wife's humiliation and damage belong?

Mishna:

a.

The wife's found object and her handiwork —

belong

to her husband.

b.

And her inheritance —

land will be purchased with it, and

he eats its produce during her lifetime.

And this is like the eating of the produce of the rest of the property of usufruct. And if he divorces her or dies during her lifetime, the principal remains hers.

c. And if a person injured her and became liable to her for five matters, namely: damage, pain, loss of work, humiliation, and medical treatment:

The payments of

her humiliation and her damage

are hers, and land will be purchased with them, and the husband eats their produce.

and land shall be purchased with them, and the husband consumes its produce.

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says:

when he humiliated her

in private ,

or damaged her in a place where she is not repulsive to the husband and he does not suffer so greatly from it —

To her,

the woman, will be given

two portions

of the payments for the damage or humiliation,

and to him,

the husband, a portion will be given,

one .

And when her humiliation is

in public,

or he damaged her in a place where she is repulsive to the husband, and he too suffers from it,

to him two portions, and to her

a portion will be given,

one .

And the Mishna concludes: the portion

that is his will be given

to him

immediately.

And

if it is the portion that is hers,

land will be purchased with it, and he eats its produce.

And if he divorces her, or dies during her lifetime, the principal remains hers. And if she dies during his lifetime, he inherits her.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: the wife's found object and her handiwork belong to her husband.

And the Gemara asks:

What does it teach us?

Has it not already

been taught

these laws above [on folio 46b]:

The father is entitled with regard to his daughter to her betrothals, by money, by document, and by intercourse. He is entitled to her found object, to her handiwork, and to the annulment of her vows. He receives her bill of divorce, and does not

eat produce during her lifetime. She marries —

the husband has an advantage over him, for he eats produce during her lifetime.

And if so, why does the tanna repeat and teach these laws here?

And we answer: the law of

her humiliation and her damage was needed

for the tanna to state, in order to make known to us the

dispute of Rabbi Judah ben Beteira and the Rabbis,

who disputed the matter. And in connection with this the tanna again taught the other laws that had already been taught above.

A tanna taught before Rava [

one of the amoraim taught a beraita before Rava]:

The wife's found object is hers. Rabbi Akiva says: It belongs to her husband.

He said to him

Rava: It is impossible that Rabbi Akiva holds that the wife's found object belongs to her husband,

for

now, and if the “surplus” [

when the woman performed work beyond what the Sages stipulated that she is obligated to perform for her husband],