Ketubot 107

פוסקין מזונות לאשת איש ושמואל אמר אין פוסקין מזונות לאשת איש אמר שמואל מודה לי אבא בשלשה חדשים הראשונים לפי שאין אדם מניח ביתו ריקן

The court apportions sustenance for a married woman, i.e., if a husband went overseas and left behind nothing with which his wife could provide for her sustenance, the court withdraws money from his estate for this purpose. And Shmuel said: The court does not apportion sustenance for a married woman. Shmuel further said: Abba, i.e., Rav, concedes to me that the court does not touch the husband’s estate for the first three months. This is because a person does not leave his house empty, and therefore it is certain that he left something with which his wife can sustain herself at least in the short term.

בששמעו בו שמת כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בשלא שמעו בו שמת רב אמר פוסקין דהא משועבד לה ושמואל אמר אין פוסקין

The Gemara comments: In a case where they heard that the husband died, everyone agrees that the court sustains his wife from his estate. When they disagree it is in a case where they did not hear that he had died abroad. Rav said that the court apportions sustenance for the wife, as his estate is legally mortgaged to her and must provide her with sustenance, and Shmuel said that in this case the court does not apportion sustenance for her.

מאי טעמא רב זביד אמר אימא צררי אתפסה רב פפא אמר חיישינן שמא אמר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Shmuel’s ruling? Rav Zevid said: One can say that he gave her a bundle of money before he departed. Rav Pappa said: We are concerned that perhaps he said to her before his departure: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, i.e., he renounced his rights to her earnings and in exchange he is no longer required to provide her with support.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו גדולה ולא ספקה

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the woman is an adult, and therefore it is possible that he left her money, and the amount she earns is not enough for her needs. According to the opinion of Rav Zevid, one can assume that he gave her money and therefore it is not necessary for the court to allocate her sustenance from his estate, whereas according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, as her earnings are not enough for her sustenance the court apportions more for her from his estate, despite the husband’s possible stipulation.

אי נמי קטנה וספקה

Alternatively, there is a difference between them in the case of a minor wife, with whom the husband would not have left money, but her earnings are enough for her sustenance. Rav Zevid would claim that the court must provide for her from his estate, as he would not have left her money, whereas Rav Pappa would argue that he might have told her to sustain herself from her own earnings.

תנן מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות חנן אמר תשבע בסוף ולא תשבע בתחלה נחלקו עליו בני כהנים גדולים ואמרו תשבע בתחלה ובסוף עד כאן לא פליגי אלא לענין שבועה אבל מזוני יהבינן לה תרגמה שמואל בששמעו בו שמת

§ We learned in the mishna: With regard to one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, Ḥanan says: She takes an oath at the end, and she does not take an oath at the outset. The sons of High Priests disputed Ḥanan’s opinion and said: She takes an oath both at the outset and at the end. The Gemara comments: They disagree only with regard to an oath; however, with regard to sustenance everyone agrees that the court gives it to her. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara explains that Shmuel interpreted the mishna in accordance with his opinion as referring to a case when they heard concerning him that he died overseas. In this scenario, everyone agrees that the court provides her with sustenance from the husband’s estate.

תא שמע מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות בני כהנים גדולים אומרים תשבע חנן אומר לא תשבע ואם בא ואמר פסקתי לה מזונות נאמן

Come and hear a baraita: With regard to one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, the sons of High Priests say: She takes an oath. Ḥanan says: She does not take an oath, i.e., she receives sustenance without having to swear. And if he came and said: I apportioned money for her sustenance and left her with sufficient funds, he is deemed credible and she must return all that she received from his estate through the court. This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Shmuel, who maintains that the court does not supply her with sustenance ab initio.

הכא נמי בששמעו בו שמת והא אם בא ואמר קאמר אם בא לאחר שמועה

The Gemara answers: Here, too, it is referring to a case where they heard concerning him that he died abroad. The Gemara asks: But the tanna said: If he came and said, which indicates that the husband is not dead. The Gemara explains that the baraita means: If he came after the rumor. There was a rumor that he had died, and for this reason the court provided her with sustenance, and later it was determined that the rumor was false.

תא שמע מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות ואם בא ואמר צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך רשאי קדמו בית דין ופסקו מה שפסקו פסקו הכא נמי בששמעו בו שמת

Come and hear another baraita: With regard to one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, if he came and said that prior to his departure he told her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, he is permitted to act accordingly. If the court went ahead and apportioned sustenance for her, what they apportioned is apportioned, and she is not required to return it. Again, this poses a difficulty for the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Here, too, it is referring to a case where they heard concerning him that he died abroad.

תא שמע מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות בית דין יורדים לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין לאשתו אבל לא בניו ובנותיו ולא דבר אחר

Come and hear another baraita: With regard to one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, the court descends to his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters, and they do not give her something else. Once again this presents a difficulty for the opinion of Shmuel.

אמר רב ששת במשרה את אשתו על ידי שליש אי הכי בניו ובנותיו נמי כשהשרה לזו ולא השרה לזו מאי פסקא

Rav Sheshet said: This is referring to one who feeds his wife by means of a third party. In this case, even if the husband was available he would not be providing her with her sustenance directly, as he appointed someone else to give her money in accordance with her needs. The Gemara asks: If so, his sons and daughters should also receive this support. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he appointed a third party for this purpose, his wife’s sustenance, but he did not appoint a third party for this purpose, the sustenance of his children. The Gemara asks: If that is correct, why was it stated without qualification? There is no hint in the baraita that the husband differentiated in this manner.

אלא אמר רב פפא כששמעה בו שמת בעד אחד היא דאי בעית אינסובי בעד אחד מצי מינסבא מזוני נמי יהבינן לה

Rather, Rav Pappa said that Shmuel would explain this baraita as referring to a case where she heard that he had died, and she was told this by one witness. Therefore, as far as she is concerned, since this is a case where if she wanted to remarry based on the testimony of that one witness she may marry, as in this situation the Sages permitted her to rely on the account of a single witness so that she not end up a deserted woman, the court also provides her with sustenance, as she may claim her marriage contract based on this testimony.

בניו ובנותיו דאי בעו למיחת לנכסיו בעד אחד לא מצו נחתי מזוני נמי לא יהבינן להו

However, with regard to his sons and daughters, since this is a case where if they wanted to descend to his estate on the basis of the testimony of one witness, they may not descend and take the property, as two witnesses are required for matters of inheritance, the court also does not provide them with sustenance. As far as the children are concerned, there is still insufficient evidence for the death of their father.

מאי דבר אחר רב חסדא אמר תכשיט רב יוסף אמר צדקה מאן דאמר תכשיט כל שכן

Incidentally, the Gemara asks: What is: Something else, mentioned in the baraita? Rav Ḥisda said: This is a wife’s ornaments, to which she is entitled in addition to her sustenance. Rav Yosef said: It is money for charity. The Gemara comments: According to the one who said that the court does not pay for her ornaments if the husband has gone overseas, all the more so

צדקה מאן דאמר צדקה אבל תכשיט יהבינן לה דלא ניחא ליה דתינוול

he maintains that she does not receive money from his property for charity, as the court does not take donations of charity from one’s property without his knowledge. Conversely, the one who said that the court does not give money for charity would argue: However, they do give her ornaments, as it is assumed that it is not satisfactory for him for his wife to be degraded by a lack of jewelry.

תא שמע היבמה שלשה חדשים הראשונים ניזונת משל בעלה

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear: With regard to a yevama, a woman whose husband died childless and he has a brother [yavam], and who is waiting either to enter into levirate marriage with the yavam or perform ḥalitza, for the first three months after her husband’s death she is sustained from the property of her husband.

מיכן ואילך אינה ניזונת לא משל בעלה ולא משל יבם עמד בדין וברח ניזונת משל יבם

From then on, as long as she has not entered into levirate marriage, she is not sustained, neither from the property of her husband nor from that of the yavam. If the yavam stood in judgment and the court ruled that he should enter into levirate marriage, and he fled, she is sustained from the property of the yavam. This apparently contradicts Shmuel’s ruling, as here the woman is provided with sustenance from the estate of the yavam in his absence, despite the fact that his obligation toward her is less than that of a husband.

אמר לך שמואל למאי ניחוש לה להאי אי משום צררי לא מיקרבא דעתיה לגבה אי משום מעשה ידיה לא משתעבדא ליה

The Gemara answers that Shmuel could have said to you: With regard to what need we be concerned in this case? If the concern is due to the possibility that he gave her a bundle of money before his departure, the mind of the yavam is not that close to this woman that he would leave money with her; if the concern is due to her earnings, i.e., that he said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, she is not yet obligated to give him her earnings.

תא שמע האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים ובאת ואמרה מת בעלי רצתה ניזונת רצתה גובה כתובתה גירשני בעלי מתפרנסת והולכת עד כדי כתובתה

Come and hear: With regard to a wife who went with her husband overseas, and she came back and said: My husband died, if she wishes she is sustained from his property, and if she wishes she collects payment of her marriage contract. If she said: My husband divorced me, but she does not present a bill of divorce, she is continually sustained from his property up to the amount of her marriage contract. The reason is that she may collect this money whether or not her claim is believed: If she is still married, she is entitled to her sustenance, and if she is divorced she receives the marriage contract. This once again presents a difficulty for the opinion of Shmuel, as she collects money from her husband’s estate in his absence.

הכא נמי כששמעו בו שמת ומאי שנא עד כדי כתובתה דאיהי היא דאפסידה אנפשה

The Gemara answers: Here, too, it is referring to a case where they heard concerning the husband that he died. The Gemara asks: And what is different about the sum up to the amount of her marriage contract; why is she given no more than this? If he is dead, she should be allowed to sustain herself from all his property until she weds another. The Gemara answers: The reason is that she is the one who caused the loss to herself. By claiming that she was divorced, she forfeits her right to more sustenance.

תא שמע כיצד אמרו ממאנת אין לה מזונות אי אתה יכול לומר ביושבת תחת בעלה שהרי בעלה חייב במזונות אלא כגון שהלך בעלה למדינת הים לותה ואכלה עמדה ומיאנה טעמא דמיאנה הא לא מיאנה יהבינן לה

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear: How, i.e., in what case, did the Sages say that a minor who refuses her husband does not receive sustenance? You cannot say that this halakha applies to a young girl who is living under the authority of her husband, as her husband is obligated in her sustenance. Rather, it applies to a case where her husband went overseas, and she borrowed money and sustained herself for a while, and subsequently she arose and refused him. The Gemara infers: The reason is that she refused him, which indicates that if she did not refuse her husband, the court gives her sustenance. This apparently shows that a woman is sustained from her husband’s property when he goes overseas.

אמר לך שמואל הכא למאי ניחוש לה אי משום צררי צררי לקטנה לא מתפיס ואי משום מעשה ידיה קטנה לא ספקה

The Gemara answers that Shmuel could have said to you: With regard to what need we be concerned here? If the concern is due to the possibility that he left her a bundle of money before his departure, one does not give a bundle of money to a minor. If the concern is due to the possibility that he instructed her to subsist on her earnings, the earnings of a minor are not enough to cover the expenses of her sustenance. In summary, no resolution has been found for the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, notwithstanding the numerous sources cited by the Gemara.

מאי הוה עלה כי אתא רב דימי אמר מעשה בא לפני רבי בבית שערים ופסק לה מזונות לפני רבי ישמעאל בצפורי ולא פסק לה מזונות תהי בה רבי יוחנן וכי מה ראה רבי ישמעאל שלא פסק לה מזונות הא לא נחלקו בני כהנים גדולים וחנן אלא לענין שבועה אבל מזוני יהבינן לה

The Gemara asks: What is the conclusion that was reached about this dispute? How should this case be treated in practice? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: An incident of this kind came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Beit She’arim, and he apportioned sustenance for her. However, a similar incident came before Rabbi Yishmael in Tzippori, and he did not apportion sustenance for her. Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered about this ruling: And what did Rabbi Yishmael see such that he did not apportion sustenance for her? After all, the sons of High Priests and Ḥanan disagreed in the mishna only with regard to whether she is obligated to swear an oath, but as far as sustenance is concerned, they concur that the court gives it to her.

אמר ליה רב שמן בר אבא כבר תרגמה רבינו שמואל בבבל כששמעו בו שמת אמר ליה פתריתו בה כולי האי

Rav Shemen bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Our Rabbi in Babylonia, Shmuel, already interpreted it as referring to a case where they heard concerning the husband that he died. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in astonishment: Have you gone that far in your analysis of this case that you were able to resolve this problem?

כי אתא רבין אמר מעשה בא לפני רבי בבית שערים ולא פסק לה מזונות לפני רבי ישמעאל בציפורי ופסק לה מזונות אמר רבי יוחנן מה ראה רבי שלא פסק לה דהא לא נחלקו חנן ובני כהנים גדולים אלא לענין שבועה אבל מזונות יהבינן לה אמר ליה רב שמן בר אבא כבר תרגמה שמואל בבבל כששמעו בו שמת אמר ליה פתריתו בה כולי האי

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said a different version of this discussion: An incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Beit She’arim, and he did not apportion sustenance for her; an incident came before Rabbi Yishmael in Tzippori, and he apportioned sustenance for her. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And what did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi see such that he did not apportion sustenance for her? As, the sons of High Priests and Ḥanan disagreed only with regard to an oath, but when it comes to sustenance, the court gives it to her. Rav Shemen bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Shmuel in Babylonia already interpreted it as referring to a case where they heard concerning him that he died. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in astonishment: Have you gone that far in your analysis of this case?

והלכתא כותיה דרב ופוסקין מזונות לאשת איש והלכתא כותיה דרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב יכולה אשה שתאמר לבעלה איני ניזונת ואיני עושה

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and therefore one apportions sustenance for a married woman whose husband went overseas. In passing, the Gemara mentions other rulings of halakha. And the halakha is in accordance with that which Rav Huna said that Rav said. As Rav Huna said that Rav said: A woman can say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and in turn I will not work, i.e., you will not keep my earnings. The reason is that this arrangement was enacted by the Sages for the wife’s benefit. Consequently, she can relinquish her rights to her sustenance in this manner.

והלכתא כותיה דרב זביד בקוניא דאמר רב זביד הני מאני דקוניא חיורי ואוכמי שרו

And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Zevid with regard to glazed [kunya] vessels. As Rav Zevid said: With regard to these glazed vessels [manei dekunya], i.e., earthenware vessels that are glazed over, the white and black ones are permitted after they have been washed, as the glazing prevents the vessels from absorbing the foods placed inside them. Some earthenware vessels absorb the food and drink that is cooked in them and are therefore rendered forbidden if at any time they contained forbidden food, e.g., wine poured as a libation or leaven on Passover. The white and black vessels are not considered like regular earthenware vessels, which are rendered permanently forbidden.

ירוקי אסירי ולא אמרן אלא דלית בהו קרטופני אבל אית בהו קרטופני אסירי:

Conversely, green ones are forbidden, as they absorb from the substances placed inside them. And we said that white and black ones are permitted only if they do not have cracks; however, if they have cracks they are forbidden, as the forbidden food is absorbed by the earthenware through the cracks.

מתני׳ מי שהלך למדינת הים ועמד אחד ופירנס את אשתו חנן אומר איבד את מעותיו

MISHNA: In the case of a husband who went overseas, and someone arose and sustained his wife in his absence, and upon the husband’s return the provider demands from him the money he spent on his wife, Ḥanan says: He has lost his money, i.e., the husband is not obligated to repay him, as the provider acted of his own free will and was not instructed to do so by the husband.

נחלקו עליו בני כהנים גדולים ואמרו ישבע כמה הוציא ויטול אמר רבי דוסא בן הרכינס כדבריהם אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי יפה אמר חנן הניח מעותיו על קרן הצבי:

The sons of High Priests disagreed with Ḥanan’s opinion and said: The man swears how much he spent on behalf of the woman, and he takes that sum from the husband. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said that the halakha is in accordance with their statement. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Ḥanan spoke well in this case, as this man is like one who placed his money on the horn of a deer in midflight, i.e., he has no reasonable expectation of reimbursement.

גמ׳ תנן התם המודר הנאה מחבירו

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Nedarim 33a): With regard to one who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another,