Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 20, 2015 | 讘壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 107

驻讜住拽讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讗讘讗 讘砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪谞讬讞 讘讬转讜 专讬拽谉

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鈥檚 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.

讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖诇讗 砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 专讘 讗诪专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讚讛讗 诪砖讜注讘讚 诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讗讬诪讗 爪专专讬 讗转驻住讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Shmuel鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 住驻拽讛

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鈥檚 possible stipulation.

讗讬 谞诪讬 拽讟谞讛 讜住驻拽讛

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.

转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讞谞谉 讗诪专 转砖讘注 讘住讜祝 讜诇讗 转砖讘注 讘转讞诇讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 转砖讘注 讘转讞诇讛 讜讘住讜祝 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗讘诇 诪讝讜谞讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转

We learned in the mishna: With regard to one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, 岣nan says: She takes an oath at the end, and she does not take an oath at the outset. The sons of High Priests disputed 岣nan鈥檚 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鈥檚 estate.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转砖讘注 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讘注 讜讗诐 讘讗 讜讗诪专 驻住拽转讬 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 谞讗诪谉

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. 岣nan 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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讜讛讗 讗诐 讘讗 讜讗诪专 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讘讗 诇讗讞专 砖诪讜注讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讗诐 讘讗 讜讗诪专 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 专砖讗讬 拽讚诪讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜驻住拽讜 诪讛 砖驻住拽讜 驻住拽讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬诐 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜讝谞讬谉 讜诪驻专谞住讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘诪砖专讛 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 讬讚讬 砖诇讬砖 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 谞诪讬 讻砖讛砖专讛 诇讝讜 讜诇讗 讛砖专讛 诇讝讜 诪讗讬 驻住拽讗

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻砖砖诪注讛 讘讜 砖诪转 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬谞住讜讘讬 讘注讚 讗讞讚 诪爪讬 诪讬谞住讘讗 诪讝讜谞讬 谞诪讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛

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.

讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讚讗讬 讘注讜 诇诪讬讞转 诇谞讻住讬讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪爪讜 谞讞转讬 诪讝讜谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜

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.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 转讻砖讬讟 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 爪讚拽讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讻砖讬讟 讻诇 砖讻谉

Incidentally, the Gemara asks: What is: Something else, mentioned in the baraita? Rav 岣sda said: This is a wife鈥檚 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

爪讚拽讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 爪讚拽讛 讗讘诇 转讻砖讬讟 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬谞讜讜诇

he maintains that she does not receive money from his property for charity, as the court does not take donations of charity from one鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讘诪讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪砖诇 讘注诇讛

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 岣litza, for the first three months after her husband鈥檚 death she is sustained from the property of her husband.

诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谞讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 诇讗 诪砖诇 讘注诇讛 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 讬讘诐 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜讘专讞 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪砖诇 讬讘诐

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 爪专专讬 诇讗 诪讬拽专讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讙讘讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚讗 诇讬讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗砖讛 砖讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讘讗转 讜讗诪专讛 诪转 讘注诇讬 专爪转讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 专爪转讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讙讬专砖谞讬 讘注诇讬 诪转驻专谞住转 讜讛讜诇讻转 注讚 讻讚讬 讻转讜讘转讛

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鈥檚 estate in his absence.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注讚 讻讚讬 讻转讜讘转讛 讚讗讬讛讬 讛讬讗 讚讗驻住讬讚讛 讗谞驻砖讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜砖讘转 转讞转 讘注诇讛 砖讛专讬 讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讜转讛 讜讗讻诇讛 注诪讚讛 讜诪讬讗谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚诪讬讗谞讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛

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鈥檚 property when he goes overseas.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 爪专专讬 爪专专讬 诇拽讟谞讛 诇讗 诪转驻讬住 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 拽讟谞讛 诇讗 住驻拽讛

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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注诇讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘讘讬转 砖注专讬诐 讜驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘爪驻讜专讬 讜诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 诪讛 专讗讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讛讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗讘诇 诪讝讜谞讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛

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鈥檃rim, 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 Yo岣nan 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 岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讻讘专 转专讙诪讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讘讘诇 讻砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转专讬转讜 讘讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

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

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘讘讬转 砖注专讬诐 讜诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 讜驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛 专讗讛 专讘讬 砖诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讞谞谉 讜讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗讘诇 诪讝讜谞讜转 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讻讘专 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讘讘诇 讻砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转专讬转讜 讘讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said a different version of this discussion: An incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Beit She鈥檃rim, and he did not apportion sustenance for her; an incident came before Rabbi Yishmael in Tzippori, and he apportioned sustenance for her. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And what did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi see such that he did not apportion sustenance for her? As, the sons of High Priests and 岣nan 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 Yo岣nan: Shmuel in Babylonia already interpreted it as referring to a case where they heard concerning him that he died. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him in astonishment: Have you gone that far in your analysis of this case?

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜驻讜住拽讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讻讜诇讛 讗砖讛 砖转讗诪专 诇讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讬 谞讬讝讜谞转 讜讗讬谞讬 注讜砖讛

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鈥檚 benefit. Consequently, she can relinquish her rights to her sustenance in this manner.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘拽讜谞讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛谞讬 诪讗谞讬 讚拽讜谞讬讗 讞讬讜专讬 讜讗讜讻诪讬 砖专讜

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.

讬专讜拽讬 讗住讬专讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 讗讘诇 讗讬转 讘讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 讗住讬专讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜注诪讚 讗讞讚 讜驻讬专谞住 讗转 讗砖转讜 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬讘讚 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜

MISHNA: In the case of a husband who went overseas, and someone arose and sustained his wife in his absence, and upon the husband鈥檚 return the provider demands from him the money he spent on his wife, 岣nan 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.

谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讻讚讘专讬讛诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讬驻讛 讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛谞讬讞 诪注讜转讬讜 注诇 拽专谉 讛爪讘讬

The sons of High Priests disagreed with 岣nan鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said: 岣nan 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.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 107

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 107

驻讜住拽讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讗讘讗 讘砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪谞讬讞 讘讬转讜 专讬拽谉

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鈥檚 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.

讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖诇讗 砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 专讘 讗诪专 驻讜住拽讬谉 讚讛讗 诪砖讜注讘讚 诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讗讬诪讗 爪专专讬 讗转驻住讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Shmuel鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 住驻拽讛

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鈥檚 possible stipulation.

讗讬 谞诪讬 拽讟谞讛 讜住驻拽讛

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.

转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讞谞谉 讗诪专 转砖讘注 讘住讜祝 讜诇讗 转砖讘注 讘转讞诇讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 转砖讘注 讘转讞诇讛 讜讘住讜祝 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗讘诇 诪讝讜谞讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转

We learned in the mishna: With regard to one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, 岣nan says: She takes an oath at the end, and she does not take an oath at the outset. The sons of High Priests disputed 岣nan鈥檚 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鈥檚 estate.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转砖讘注 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讘注 讜讗诐 讘讗 讜讗诪专 驻住拽转讬 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 谞讗诪谉

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. 岣nan 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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讜讛讗 讗诐 讘讗 讜讗诪专 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讘讗 诇讗讞专 砖诪讜注讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讗诐 讘讗 讜讗诪专 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 专砖讗讬 拽讚诪讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜驻住拽讜 诪讛 砖驻住拽讜 驻住拽讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬诐 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜讝谞讬谉 讜诪驻专谞住讬谉 诇讗砖转讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘诪砖专讛 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 讬讚讬 砖诇讬砖 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 谞诪讬 讻砖讛砖专讛 诇讝讜 讜诇讗 讛砖专讛 诇讝讜 诪讗讬 驻住拽讗

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻砖砖诪注讛 讘讜 砖诪转 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬谞住讜讘讬 讘注讚 讗讞讚 诪爪讬 诪讬谞住讘讗 诪讝讜谞讬 谞诪讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛

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.

讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讚讗讬 讘注讜 诇诪讬讞转 诇谞讻住讬讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪爪讜 谞讞转讬 诪讝讜谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜

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.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 转讻砖讬讟 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 爪讚拽讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讻砖讬讟 讻诇 砖讻谉

Incidentally, the Gemara asks: What is: Something else, mentioned in the baraita? Rav 岣sda said: This is a wife鈥檚 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

爪讚拽讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 爪讚拽讛 讗讘诇 转讻砖讬讟 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬谞讜讜诇

he maintains that she does not receive money from his property for charity, as the court does not take donations of charity from one鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讘诪讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪砖诇 讘注诇讛

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 岣litza, for the first three months after her husband鈥檚 death she is sustained from the property of her husband.

诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谞讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 诇讗 诪砖诇 讘注诇讛 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 讬讘诐 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜讘专讞 谞讬讝讜谞转 诪砖诇 讬讘诐

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 爪专专讬 诇讗 诪讬拽专讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讙讘讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚讗 诇讬讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗砖讛 砖讛诇讻讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讘讗转 讜讗诪专讛 诪转 讘注诇讬 专爪转讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 专爪转讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讙讬专砖谞讬 讘注诇讬 诪转驻专谞住转 讜讛讜诇讻转 注讚 讻讚讬 讻转讜讘转讛

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鈥檚 estate in his absence.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注讚 讻讚讬 讻转讜讘转讛 讚讗讬讛讬 讛讬讗 讚讗驻住讬讚讛 讗谞驻砖讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜砖讘转 转讞转 讘注诇讛 砖讛专讬 讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讜转讛 讜讗讻诇讛 注诪讚讛 讜诪讬讗谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚诪讬讗谞讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛

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鈥檚 property when he goes overseas.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 爪专专讬 爪专专讬 诇拽讟谞讛 诇讗 诪转驻讬住 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 拽讟谞讛 诇讗 住驻拽讛

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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 注诇讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘讘讬转 砖注专讬诐 讜驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘爪驻讜专讬 讜诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 诪讛 专讗讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讛讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗讘诇 诪讝讜谞讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛

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鈥檃rim, 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 Yo岣nan 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 岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讻讘专 转专讙诪讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讘讘诇 讻砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转专讬转讜 讘讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

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

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘讘讬转 砖注专讬诐 讜诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 讜驻住拽 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛 专讗讛 专讘讬 砖诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讞谞谉 讜讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗讘诇 诪讝讜谞讜转 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讻讘专 转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讘讘诇 讻砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转专讬转讜 讘讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said a different version of this discussion: An incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Beit She鈥檃rim, and he did not apportion sustenance for her; an incident came before Rabbi Yishmael in Tzippori, and he apportioned sustenance for her. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And what did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi see such that he did not apportion sustenance for her? As, the sons of High Priests and 岣nan 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 Yo岣nan: Shmuel in Babylonia already interpreted it as referring to a case where they heard concerning him that he died. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him in astonishment: Have you gone that far in your analysis of this case?

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜驻讜住拽讬谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讻讜诇讛 讗砖讛 砖转讗诪专 诇讘注诇讛 讗讬谞讬 谞讬讝讜谞转 讜讗讬谞讬 注讜砖讛

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鈥檚 benefit. Consequently, she can relinquish her rights to her sustenance in this manner.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 讘拽讜谞讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛谞讬 诪讗谞讬 讚拽讜谞讬讗 讞讬讜专讬 讜讗讜讻诪讬 砖专讜

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.

讬专讜拽讬 讗住讬专讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 讗讘诇 讗讬转 讘讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 讗住讬专讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜注诪讚 讗讞讚 讜驻讬专谞住 讗转 讗砖转讜 讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬讘讚 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜

MISHNA: In the case of a husband who went overseas, and someone arose and sustained his wife in his absence, and upon the husband鈥檚 return the provider demands from him the money he spent on his wife, 岣nan 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.

谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讬砖讘注 讻诪讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讬讟讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讻讚讘专讬讛诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讬驻讛 讗诪专 讞谞谉 讛谞讬讞 诪注讜转讬讜 注诇 拽专谉 讛爪讘讬

The sons of High Priests disagreed with 岣nan鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said: 岣nan 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.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜

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

Scroll To Top