Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth
'Is it because R. Zebid is a great man1 that you turn the law against him? Surely R. Kahana stated that Raba had only raised the question but had not solved it'. Now that it has not been stated what the law is,2 [such clothing] is not to be taken away from her if she has already seized them, but if she has not yet seized them they are not to be given to her. We also make her wait twelve months, a [full] year. for her divorce,3 and during these twelve months she receives no maintenance from her husband.4
R. Tobi b. Kisna stated in the name of Samuel: A certificate of rebellion may be written against a betrothed woman but no such certificate may be written against one who is awaiting the decision of the levir.5 An objection was raised: The same [law6 is applicable to a woman] betrothed or married, even to a menstruant, even to a sick woman and even to one who was awaiting the decision of the levir!7 — This is no contradiction. The one8 refers to the case where the man claimed her;9 the other10 to that where she claimed him.11 For R. Tahlifa b. Abimi stated in the name of Samuel: If he claimed her9 he is attended to;12 if she claimed him she is not attended to.13 To what case did you explain the statement of Samuel14 as referring? To the one where she claimed him?15 [But if so] instead of Saying16 'A certificate of rebellion may be written against a betrothed woman' it should have been said, 'On behalf of a betrothed woman'!17 — This is no difficulty. Read, 'On behalf of a betrothed woman'.18
Wherein does a woman awaiting the decision of the levir differ [from the man] that no [certificate of rebellion should be issued on her behalf]? Obviously because we tell her, 'Go, you are not commanded [to marry]';19 [but. then.] a betrothed woman also should be told, 'Go, you are not commanded [to marry]'!19 Again should [it be explained to be one] where she comes with the plea Saying. 'I wish to have a staff in my hand and a spade for my burial',20 [this then should] also apply to a woman awaiting the decision of the levir if she comes with such a plea! — [The proper explanation] then [must be this]: Both statements21 [refer to the case] where the man claimed,22 and yet there is no difficulty. since one23 may refer24 to the performance of halizah and the other25 to that of the levirate marriage. For R. Pedath stated in the name of R. Johanan: [If the levir] claimed her for the performance of halizah his request is to be attended to,26 but if he claimed her for the levirate marriage his request is disregarded.27 Why [is he] not [attended to when he claims her] for the levirate marriage? Naturally because we tell him, 'Go and marry another woman'; [but then even when he claims her] for the performance of halizah could we not also tell him, 'Go and marry another woman'? Again should the answer be: [Because] he can plead. 'As she is bound to me28 no other wife will be given me'. Here also29 [could he not plead] 'As she is bound to me no other wife will be given to me'? — [The proper explanation] then [is this]: Both statements30 [deal with one] who claimed her for the levirate marriage. but there is really no difficulty. one31 being32 in agreement with the earlier Mishnah while the other is32 in agreement with the latter Mishnah. For we have learned: The commandment of the levirate marriage must take precedence over that of halizah.33 [This was the case] in earlier days when [levirs] had the intention of observing the commandment — Now, however, when their intention is not the fulfilment of the commandment, it has been ruled that the commandment of halizah takes precedence over that of the levirate marriage.34
FOR HOW LONG MAY THE REDUCTION CONTINUE TO BE MADE? etc. What [is meant by] TROPAICS? R. Shesheth replied: [one tropaic is] an istira. And how much is an istira? — Half a zuz.35 So it was also taught: R. Judah said: Three tropaics which [amount to] nine ma'ah35 [the reduction being at the rate of] one ma'ah and a half per day.36
R. Hiyya b. Joseph asked Of Samuel: In what respect is he37 different [from his wife] that he is allowed [a reduction] for the Sabbath,38 and in what respect is she different [from him] that she is not allowed [an addition] for the Sabbath?39 — In her case,40 since it is a reduction that is made, [the seventh tropaic the husband gains] does not have the appearance of Sabbath pay. In his case, however,41 since it is additions that are made,
[another addition for the seventh day] would have the appearance of Sabbath pay. R. Hiyya b. Joseph [further] asked of Samuel: What [is the reason for the distinction] between a man who rebels [against his wife] and a woman who rebels [against her husband]?1 — The other replied. 'Go and learn it from the market of the harlots; who hires whom?'2 Another explanation: [The manifestation of] his passions is external; hers is internal.
MISHNAH. IF A MAN3 MAINTAINS HIS WIFE THROUGH A TRUSTEE, HE MUST GIVE HER [EVERY WEEK] NOT LESS THAN TWO KABS4 OF WHEAT OR FOUR KABS OF BARLEY. SAID R. JOSE: ONLY R. ISHMAEL WHO LIVED NEAR EDOM5 GRANTED HER A SUPPLY OF BARLEY.6 HE MUST ALSO GIVE HER HALF A KAB OF PULSE AND HALF A LOG4 OF OIL; AND A KAB OF DRIED FIGS OR A MANEH4 OF PRESSED FIGS,7 AND IF HE HAS NO [SUCH FRUIT] HE MUST SUPPLY HER WITH A CORRESPONDING QUANTITY OF OTHER8 FRUIT. HE MUST ALSO PROVIDE HER WITH A BED, A MATTRESS9 AND10 A RUSH MAT. HE MUST ALSO GIVE HER [ONCE A YEAR] A CAP FOR HER HEAD AND A GIRDLE FOR HER LOINS; SHOES [HE MUST GIVE HER] EACH MAJOR FESTIVAL;11 AND CLOTHING [OF THE VALUE] OF FIFTY ZUZ EVERY YEAR. SHE IS NOT TO BE GIVEN NEW [CLOTHES]12 IN THE SUMMER OR WORN-OUT CLOTHES IN THE WINTER, BUT MUST BE GIVEN THE CLOTHING [OF THE VALUE] OF FIFTY ZUZ DURING THE WINTER, AND SHE CLOTHES HERSELF WITH THEM WHEN THEY ARE WORN-OUT DURING THE SUMMER; AND THE WORN-OUT CLOTHES REMAIN HER PROPERTY.13 HE MUST ALSO GIVE HER [EVERY WEEK] A SILVER MA'AH FOR HER [OTHER] REQUIREMENTS14 AND SHE IS TO EAT WITH HIM ON THE NIGHT OF EVERY SABBATH.15 IF HE DOES NOT GIVE HER A SILVER MA'AH FOR HER OTHER REQUIREMENTS, HER HANDIWORK BELONGS TO HER.16 AND WHAT [IS THE QUANTITY OF WORK THAT] SHE MUST DO FOR HIM?17 THE WEIGHT OF FIVE SELA'S OF WARP IN JUDAEA, WHICH AMOUNTS TO TEN SELA'S IN GALILEE,18 OR THE WEIGHT OF TEN SELA'S OF WOOF19 IN JUDAEA, WHICH AMOUNTS TO TWENTY SELA'S IN GALILEE.18 IF SHE WAS NURSING [HER CHILD] HER HANDIWORK IS REDUCED AND HER MAINTENANCE IS INCREASED. ALL THIS APPLIES TO THE POOREST IN ISRAEL, BUT IN THE CASE OF A MEMBER OF THE BETTER CLASSES20 ALL IS FIXED ACCORDING TO THE DIGNITY OF HIS POSITION.
GEMARA. Whose [view is represented in] our Mishnah?21 [It seems to be] neither that of R. Johanan b. Beroka nor that of R. Simeon. For we learned: And what must be its22 size? Food for two meals for each, [the quantity being] the food one eats on weekdays and not On the Sabbath; so R. Meir. R. Judah said: As on the Sabbath and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the lenient ruling.23 R. Johanan b. Beroka said:24 A loaf that is purchased for a dupondiom25 [when the cost of wheat is at the rate of] four se'ah25 for a sela'.25 R. Simeon said:26 Two thirds of a loaf, three of which are made from a Kab.27 Half of this [loaf is the size prescribed] for a leprous house,28 and half of its half29 renders one's body30 unfit;31 and half of the half of its half to be susceptible to Levitical uncleanness,32 Now, whose [view is that expressed in our Mishnah]?33 If [it be suggested that it is that of] R. Johanan b. Beroka [the prescribed TWO KABS would only] be [sufficient for] eight [meals].34 and if [the suggestion is that it is that of] R. Simeon [the TWO KABS would] be [sufficient even for] eighteen [meals].35 — [Our Mishnah may] in fact [represent the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka but, as R. Hisda said elsewhere,36 'Deduct a third of them for the [profit of the] shopkeeper',37 so here38 also take a third39 and add to them.40 But [do not the meals] still amount only to twelve?41 — She eats with him on Friday nights — 42 This is satisfactory according to him who explained43 [TO EAT In our Mishnah as] actual eating. What, however, can be said according to him who explained 'eating' [to mean] intercourse? Furthermore, [would not her total number of meals still] be only thirteen?44 — The proper answer is really this:45 As R. Hisda said elsewhere,46 'Deduct a half for the [profit of the] shopkeeper.47 so here48 also take a half49 and add to them.50 (Does not a contradiction arise between the two statements of R. Hisda?51 — There is no contradiction. One statement refers52 to a place where [the sellers of the wheat] supply also wood53 while the other refers52 to a place where they do not supply the wood.)54 If so55 [the number of meals] is sixteen.56 With whose [view then would our Mishnah agree]? With R. Hidka who ruled: A man must eat on the Sabbath four meals?57 — It may be said to represent even the view of the Rabbis, for one meal is to be reserved for guests and occasional visitors.58 Now that you have arrived at this position [our Mishnah] may be said to represent even the view of R. Simeon,59 for according to the Rabbis60 three meals should be deducted61 for guests and occasional visitors62 and according to R. Hidka63 two Only are to be deducted for guests and occasional visitors.64
SAID R. JOSE: ONLY … GRANTED A SUPPLY OF BARLEY etc. Do they eat barley at Edom only and throughout the world none IS eaten? — It is this that he meant: ONLY R. ISHMAEL WHO LIVED NEAR EDOM GRANTED A SUPPLY OF BARLEY equal to twice the quantity of wheat, because the Idumean barley was of an inferior quality.
THE MAN MUST ALSO GIVE HER HALF A KAB OF PULSE. Wine, however, is not mentioned. This provides support for a view of R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar stated:
- To Next Folio -