Ketubot 65b (סה:) — the Talmud in English

And is it possible that

this tanna

of our Mishna means that a

messenger

stripped naked and

barefoot except for shoes

that he is stripped of his garments and walks naked, while he wears shoes on his feet?!

Abaye said to Rav Pappa:

Abaye said to Rav Pappa:

The tanna

of our Mishna

is speaking of a mountainous region,

he is discussing a woman who lives in a mountainous area,

where she cannot manage without three pairs of shoes

[as she requires three pairs of shoes each year]. But she requires new clothing only once a year.

And incidentally

and by the way,

the tanna teaches us

the tanna

that he should give them to her on the Festival, so that she will have joy in them

that he should renew her shoes on the Festival so that she will rejoice in them.

We learned in the Mishna:

and clothing worth fifty zuz

once a year:

Abaye said:

The fifty zuz that we learned are

fifty

peshita zuz

([state zuz], which are one-eighth of Tyrian silver).

From where

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 matters stated? With regard to a poor person of Israel; but with regard to a person of distinction, all is according to his honor.

Thus, our Mishna is discussing a poor person of Israel—

And if it enters

your mind that

“fifty zuz”

means fifty zuz

literally,

of Tyrian silver, which is extremely valuable, then

a poor person—

from where would he have fifty zuz!?

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

Rather,

certainly,

infer from this: they are fifty peshita zuz.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one does not give her new garments

in the summer, nor worn garments in the winter. Rather, he gives her clothing worth fifty zuz in the winter, and she covers herself with the worn garments in the summer; and the worn garments belong to her:

The Sages taught:

Any surplus of food—

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

to the husband.

Any surplus of worn garments—

belongs to the woman,

as we learned in our Mishna: “and the worn garments belong to her.”

And the Gemara asks:

The surplus of worn garments belongs to the woman—

why does she need it?

That is to say: Why do they belong to her? Since he gives her new clothing, why should she not return the worn garments to the husband?!

Rav Reḥava said:

Because

she covers herself with them,

with the worn garments,

during the days of her menstruation, so that she will not become repulsive in her husband’s eyes

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

Abaye said: We have received as a tradition

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

the surplus of a widow’s worn garments

that she received from the heirs—for they are obligated to give her new clothing worth fifty zuz each year from the property they inherited from their father—returns

to his heirs.

The reason for the distinction between the surplus of the worn garments of a woman supported by her husband and that of a woman supported from the orphans’ property is:

For

there—

with regard to a woman supported by her husband, the reason that they belong to her

is

because

she should not become repulsive in his eyes

[she should not become repulsive in her husband’s eyes], as explained above.

But

here—

where she is supported from the orphans’ property—

let her become repulsive, let her become repulsive.

We learned in the Mishna:

He gives her a silver ma’a

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

The Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “she eats”?

Rav Naḥman said: She eats

with him

literally

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

Rav Ashi said:

“She eats” means

marital relations,

and even if he is a camel driver or sailor, for whom the obligation of marital relations is not 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 of

we learned

in our Mishna:

“She eats with him on Friday night!”

Granted, according to the one who says that “eating

is literal,”

this is why it teaches “she eats.”

But according to the one who says

that it means

“marital relations,” why did he use the expression “she eats”?

And the Gemara answers:

It is refined language

it is [a euphemistic expression]. And

as

we find

that it is written: “She ate

[she engaged in illicit relations]

and wiped her mouth, and said: ‘I have committed no iniquity.’”

They raised 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

that “she eats” is

literal eating

literally,

this is why it teaches “and on Shabbat.”

But according to the one who says

that “she eats” means

marital relations,

the difficulty is: Is

marital relations on Shabbat

during the day

possible?!

But didn’t Rav Huna say: “The Jewish people are holy, and they do not engage in marital relations during the day”?!

And we resolve:

Rava said: “In a dark house it is permitted.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And if she was nursing,

they reduce the amount of her earnings and add to her food allowance:

Rabbi Ulla the Great expounded, at the entrance of the house of the Nasi

:[at the entrance of the house of the Nasi]:

Although they said: A person does not support his sons and daughters when they are minors—

but he supports

the father supports his sons and daughters when they are

very young,

and he is compelled to do so.

And the Gemara explains Ulla’s statement:

How old

are the sons called “very young,” such that their father is obligated to support 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 Shabbat boundaries of

his mother,

he follows his mother’s eruv, and she takes him with her in the direction where she placed her eruv, even if his father placed an eruv in the opposite direction. The reason is that he requires his mother, and the Sages subordinated him to his mother.

We have thus learned that until the age of six he requires his mother; therefore, just as the husband supports his wife, so does he support her son together with her.

From where,

do we learn that a person must support his sons when they are very young?

From the fact that it teaches

in our Mishna: “And if

she was nursing, they reduce the amount of her earnings and add to her food allowance.”

And

what is the reason

that they add to her food allowance?

Is it not

the case

because he needs to eat together with her

[because her son needs to eat with his mother]? And the fact that we learned “if she was nursing” is not precise; rather, the same applies whenever her son is with her!

And we challenge the proof from our Mishna:

Perhaps

the reason they add to her food allowance is

because she is ill?!

And the Gemara upholds the proof:

If so—

if the reason is that she is ill—

let it teach

in our Mishna:

“If she was ill.”

Why,

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 this resolution, and consequently the proof:

Perhaps, this is what it teaches us

our Mishna:

that nursing women are generally ill?!

It was stated: What does he add for her?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: They add for the nursing woman

to the nursing woman

wine,

because

wine is beneficial for milk.

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

Introduction

Above [on 46b], the rights of the husband with regard to his wife were explained. Among other matters, it was explained that the husband acquires his wife’s found objects and the product of her labor.

Our Mishna, after opening with the laws taught above, addresses 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 types of payment: injury, pain, medical treatment, loss of work [payment for the loss of the ability to work and thereby earn wages during the illness], and humiliation. It is therefore necessary to determine to whom the wife’s humiliation and injury belong.

Mishna:

1.

The woman’s found object and the product of her labor —

belong

to her husband.

2.

And her inheritance —

land shall be purchased with it, and

he consumes its produce during her lifetime.

This is like the consumption of the produce of other nikhsei melog property. If he divorces her or dies during her lifetime, the principal remains hers.

3. And if a person injured her and became liable to her for the five payments, namely, injury, pain, loss of work, humiliation, and medical treatment:

The payments for

her humiliation and her injury

belong to her,

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

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says:

When he humiliated her

in private ,

or injured her in a place where she does not become repulsive to her husband and he does not suffer greatly as a result —

“Injury” means that he cut off one of her limbs, or created a blemish on her body through blows, or anything similar. She is evaluated as though she were a maidservant sold in the marketplace, and whatever reduction there is in her value is her injury. Commentary on the Mishna of Maimonides. To her,

the woman, shall be given

two parts

of the payments for the injury or humiliation,

and to him,

the husband, shall be given one

part .

And when her humiliation is

in public,

or he injured her in a place where she becomes repulsive to her husband and he too suffers as a result,

he shall be given two parts, and to her

shall be given one

part .

The Mishna concludes:

His portion shall be given

to him

immediately.

And

if it is her portion,

land shall be purchased with it, and he consumes the produce.

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The woman’s found object and the product of her labor belong to her husband.

The Gemara asks:

What does this teach us?

Did we not already

learn

these laws above [on 46b]:

The father is entitled with regard to his daughter to effect her betrothal, through money, a document, or intercourse. He is entitled to her found object, to the product of her labor, and to the nullification of her vows. He receives her bill of divorce, and he does not

consume the produce during her lifetime. Once she marries,

the husband has an advantage over him, as he consumes the produce during her lifetime.

If so, why does the tanna repeat these laws here?

And we answer: The law of

her humiliation and injury was necessary

for the tanna to state, in order to teach us

the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis,

who disagreed about it. And in connection with this, the tanna repeated the other laws that had already been taught above.

A tanna taught a beraita before Rava [

one of the amoraim taught a beraita before Rava]:

The woman’s found object belongs to her. Rabbi Akiva says: It belongs to her husband.

Rava said to him:

It is impossible that Rabbi Akiva holds that the woman’s found object belongs to her husband,

for

now, if even “extra earnings” [

when the woman performs more labor than the amount that the Sages established that she is obligated to perform for her husband],