One of the responsibilities a woman has to her husband is to nurse their child. However, if they get divorced, she does not need to. But if the child recognizes the mother and will not nurse from another woman, the husband can insist she nurse the child, but needs to pay her to do it. The rabbis debate what is the age at which a child can recognize its own mother. A mother is allowed to nurse her child until the child reaches a certain age. There is a debate regarding the age limit. Beyond that age, it is as if the child is nursing from a non-kosher animal. This is contradicted by a braita that infers that breast milk is kosher, as is human blood. The Gemara differentiates between breast milk that is removed from the mother’s body (permitted to eat) and has not been removed (forbidden, other than to a young child). One who is sick and needs milk and cannot find it elsewhere can suck milk from a kosher animal on Shabbat, even though it is forbidden as it is an act of extracting, a sub-category of the melacha of dash, threshing, as it is done here in an unusual manner and is needed for one who is sick. One who stopped nursing after 24 months and goes back to nurse is also not permitted. How many days is considered having stopped? Suppose one became a widow during the 24-month nursing period. In that case, she cannot get engaged or remarried during that time as she may become pregnant and her milk will dry up and her new husband will not necessarily be willing to pay for the child to be nursed as it is not his child. Others say the waiting period is 18 months (debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, and also between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that since it takes three months for the milk to dry up, each opinion allows her to get married three months earlier. Abaye made the mistake of ruling like the more lenient opinion but then heard from Rav Yosef that one needs to wait the full 24 months. He tried to run after the person he permitted to marry earlier but had to run through sand dunes and couldn’t catch up to him. He then taught that one should never permit anything when he is in the vicinity of his teacher. If the woman hired a wet nurse or the child died, can she remarry earlier? Is there a reason to distinguish between these two situations? Is a woman hired as a wet nurse permitted to nurse her child or someone else’s as well? If the family who hired a wet nurse committed to giving her some food, but not enough, does she have to make sure to eat more? And if so, who pays for it? What foods are good/bad for nursing mothers?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
Ketubot 60
עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם. אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בִּשְׁלָמָא רַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — כׇּל חַד וְחַד כִּי חוּרְפֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: How old does the child have to be so that one can assume that he already recognizes his mother? Rava said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: Three months, and Shmuel said: Thirty days, and Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fifty days. Rav Shimi bar Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with what Rabbi Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara asks: Granted, Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan are in dispute with regard to the difference between fifty days and three months, as it is possible that each baby varies according to its intelligence, as one baby is sufficiently developed at fifty days, while another knows his mother at only three months. However, according to Shmuel, can you find a case like this, a one-month-old baby who recognizes his mother?
כִּי אֲתָא רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל, אָמַר: לָא תְּצִיתִינְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי דְּכָיֵיל יְהוּדָה אֲחִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁמַּכִּירָהּ.
The Gemara relates: When Rami bar Yeḥezkel came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: Do not listen to, i.e., do not accept, those principles that my brother Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, as Shmuel did not establish a particular time with regard to this matter. Rather, this is what Shmuel said: Whenever he recognizes her, i.e., there is no fixed age at which this occurs. One must check each baby to see whether he recognizes his mother.
הָהִיא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב דִּימִי בַּר יוֹסֵף: זִיל בִּדְקֵהּ. אֲזַל אוֹתְבַהּ בְּדָרֵי דִנְשֵׁי, וְשַׁקְלֵיהּ לִבְרַהּ וְקָמְהַדַּר לֵיהּ עֲלַיְיהוּ. כִּי מְטָא לְגַבַּהּ, הֲוָת קָא מְסַוֵּי לְאַפַּהּ כְּבַשְׁתִּנְהִי לְעֵינַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: נְטֹף עֵינִיךְ, קוּם דְּרַי בְּרִיךְ. סוֹמֵא מְנָא יָדַע? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּרֵיחָא וּבְטַעְמָא.
The Gemara relates: A certain divorcée came before Shmuel, as she did not wish to nurse her son. He said to Rav Dimi bar Yosef: Go and check her, i.e., verify whether the child recognizes his mother. He went, placed her in a row of women, and took her son in his arms and passed him near them to see how the child would react. When the child reached her, he looked at her face with joy, and she averted her eyes from him, as she did not want to look at him. He said to her: Lift up your eyes, get up and take your son, as it is obvious that he knows you. The Gemara asks: If this is so, then how does a blind baby know and recognize his mother? Rav Ashi said: Through smell and through the taste of her milk.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יוֹנֵק תִּינוֹק וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. פֵּירַשׁ לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ וְחָזַר — כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ.
§ Apropos the period of time during which a child nurses, the Gemara continues to debate different aspects of this matter. The Sages taught in a baraita: A child may continue to nurse until the age of twenty-four months, and from this point forward, if he continues to nurse, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal, as a woman’s milk is forbidden to anyone other than a small child; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: A child may continue to nurse even for four or five years, and this is permitted. However, if he ceased, i.e., was weaned, after twenty-four months and then resumed nursing, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal.
אָמַר מָר: מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ. וּרְמִינְהִי: יָכוֹל יְהֵא חֲלֵב מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם טָמֵא. וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהֵקַלְתָּ בְּמַגָּעָהּ — הֶחְמַרְתָּ בַּחֲלָבָהּ, אָדָם שֶׁהֶחְמַרְתָּ בְּמַגָּעוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתַּחְמִיר בַּחֲלָבוֹ?
The Master said in the baraita: From this point forward he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One might have thought that the milk of bipeds, i.e., humans, would be non-kosher like that of a non-kosher animal, based on a logical derivation: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, where you were lenient with regard to its contact, meaning that it does not render people or items impure through contact when it is alive, you were stringent with regard to its milk, which is prohibited, even more so should this be true with regard to a person. An a fortiori inference would indicate that with regard to a person, where you were stringent about contact, as people can render other people and objects impure even when they are alive, one should be stricter. So isn’t it logical that you should be stringent with regard to his milk?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת הַגָּמָל כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא״, הוּא טָמֵא, וְאֵין חֲלֵב מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם טָמֵא, אֶלָּא טָהוֹר. יָכוֹל אוֹצִיא אֶת הֶחָלָב, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַדָּם שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הוּא״ — הוּא טָמֵא, וְאֵין דַּם מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם טָמֵא, אֶלָּא טָהוֹר.
This is as the verse states: “But this you shall not eat, of those that only chew the cud, or of those that only part the hoof; the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:4). The somewhat superfluous word “it” teaches that it alone is impure, but the milk of bipeds is not impure; rather, it is kosher. Furthermore, one might have thought that I should exclude the milk of humans from the prohibition against consumption, as this issue does not apply equally to everyone, since only women produce milk, but I should not exclude from the prohibition human blood, which does apply equally to everyone. Consequently, the verse states “it” with regard to a camel, to say that it alone is impure, whereas the blood of bipeds is not impure, but rather is kosher.
וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוַת פְּרִישָׁה אֵין בּוֹ.
And Rav Sheshet said about this ruling: There is not even a rabbinic command to refrain from consuming human milk. Therefore, this presents a contradiction to the statement that a child who nurses beyond a certain age is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּפָרֵישׁ, הָא דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement that the milk is permitted is referring to when it has been removed from the woman’s body, and that statement, that the milk is forbidden, is referring to when it has not been removed. Fundamentally, human milk is a permitted substance. However, it is prohibited by rabbinic law for anyone other than a very young child to nurse directly from a woman’s breasts, and one who does so is considered like one who consumes milk from a non-kosher animal.
וְחִילּוּפַהּ בְּדָם. כִּדְתַנְיָא: דָּם שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כִּכָּר — גּוֹרְרוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹ. שֶׁבֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם — מוֹצְצוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
And the opposite applies to blood: Human blood that has been removed from the body is forbidden, but if it has not yet been removed, it is permitted. As it is taught in a baraita: If some human blood was on a loaf of bread, one scrapes off the blood and then he may eat the bread. Since the blood was detached from the body, it is forbidden by rabbinic law, but if blood was between the teeth, he may suck it and swallow it without concern, as the blood is permitted if it has not been removed from the body.
אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ חֲבִילָתוֹ עַל כְּתֵיפָיו! אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Master said in the aforementioned baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: A child may continue to nurse even for four or five years. But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if he can carry his package on his shoulder he can continue to nurse? The Gemara answers: This is not a contradiction, since both this and that are one, the same, measure, and the difference between them is only semantic. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מָרִינוּס אוֹמֵר: גּוֹנֵחַ — יוֹנֵק חָלָב בְּשַׁבָּת. מַאי טַעְמָא: יוֹנֵק מְפָרֵק כִּלְאַחַר יָד, וּבִמְקוֹם צַעֲרָא לָא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מָרִינוּס.
On the same topic it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Marinos says: One who is coughing due to an illness that requires milk but did not have milk available may suck milk directly from an animal’s udders on Shabbat, although milking is a prohibited labor on Shabbat. What is the reason? Sucking the milk in this way constitutes an act of extracting in an unusual manner. Although milking is an example of the labor of extracting, a subcategory of the primary category of threshing, it is prohibited by Torah law only when the labor is performed in its typical manner. One who nurses from an animal is extracting the milk in an unusual manner. Such labor is prohibited by rabbinic law, but in a situation involving pain, like one who is coughing, the Sages did not issue a decree. Rabbi Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Marinos.
תַּנְיָא, נַחוּם אִישׁ גַּלְיָא אוֹמֵר: צִינּוֹר שֶׁעָלוּ בּוֹ קַשְׁקַשִּׁין — מְמַעֲכָן בְּרַגְלוֹ בְּצִנְעָא בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. מַאי טַעְמָא — מְתַקֵּן כִּלְאַחַר יָד הוּא, וּבִמְקוֹם פְּסֵידָא לָא גְּזַרוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּנַחוּם אִישׁ גַּלְיָא.
A ruling similar to the previous halakha is taught in a baraita: Naḥum of Galia says: If a drainage pipe is blocked by weeds [kashkashin] and grass, preventing water from running through the pipe, one may crush them with his foot in private on Shabbat without concern that he is performing the labor of preparing a vessel. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this leniency? This is an example of repairing a vessel in an unusual manner, since it is uncommon to fix an item without using a tool or one’s hands. Performing labor in an unusual manner is ordinarily prohibited by rabbinic decree, but in a situation involving financial loss, the Sages did not issue a decree. Rabbi Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum of Galia.
פֵּירַשׁ לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ וְחָזַר — כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, תָּנֵי רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים.
The Gemara continues discussing the aforementioned baraita, which states: If the child ceased nursing after twenty-four months and then resumed, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. The Gemara asks: How long must he cease nursing to be considered weaned? Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva said that Shmuel said: Three days. There are those who say that this was not an amoraic statement, but rather a baraita that is taught by Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva before Shmuel: Weaning takes effect after three days.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֵינֶקֶת שֶׁמֵּת בַּעְלָהּ בְּתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּתְאָרֵס וְלֹא תִּינָּשֵׂא
§ The Gemara discusses other halakhot relating to nursing. The Sages taught: A nursing woman whose husband died within twenty-four months of her child’s birth may not be betrothed and may not get married
עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בִּשְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר יוֹסֵף: הֵן הֵן דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, הֵן הֵן דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
until twenty-four months from the day the child was born. The reason for this decree is to protect the child. If she remarries she may become pregnant and may not be able to continue nursing, but her second husband will not be obligated to support the child who is not his son. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda permits getting married after eighteen months. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef said: These words are the same as the statement of Beit Shammai, and those words are the same as the statement of Beit Hillel, i.e., this is an ancient dispute, as Beit Shammai say: Twenty-four months, and Beit Hillel say: Eighteen months.
אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֲנִי אַכְרִיעַ. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ — מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד חֹדֶשׁ. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר בִּשְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הֶחָלָב נֶעְכָּר אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I will decide. According to the one who says twenty-four months, she may marry after twenty-one months, since even if she gets pregnant, for the first three months of pregnancy she can still continue to nurse. According to the one who says eighteen months, she may marry after fifteen months, since the milk becomes spoiled due to pregnancy only after three months.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְאָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: לִי הִתִּיר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָשֵׂאת לְאַחַר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לֵיאָרֵס בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲדָא, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְעוֹד: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל — הֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: לִי הִתִּיר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָשֵׂאת לְאַחַר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּאַתְּ לֵיאָרֵס.
Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Mar Ukva said: Rabbi Ḥanina allowed me to marry a nursing woman after fifteen months. It is related that Abaye’s tenant farmer came before Abaye to ask a question. He said to him: What is the halakha with regard to betrothing a nursing woman after fifteen months? Abaye said to him: One reason it is permitted is that in disputes between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. And furthermore, this is actually a dispute between earlier tanna’im, and when Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute, the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel. And in addition, Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. And Mar Ukva said: Rabbi Ḥanina allowed me to marry after fifteen months, and therefore all the more so you are permitted to betroth her, as you are only betrothing and not marrying her.
כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, חוּץ מִיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ וְחוּץ מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה בּוֹ. רְהַט בָּתְרֵיהּ תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פַּרְסָא בְּחָלָא, וְלָא אַדְרְכֵיהּ.
When Abaye came before Rav Yosef and told him of the incident, Rav Yosef said to him in response: Rav and Shmuel both say: She must wait twenty-four months before even becoming betrothed, excluding the day that the child was born and excluding the day she became betrothed. When Abaye heard this, he ran three parasangs after his tenant farmer, and some say that he ran one parasang [parsa] through sand. He wanted to inform him that he should not rely on the leniency, but rather he should act in accordance with Rav and Shmuel, who prohibited the betrothal, but he did not succeed in catching up to him.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן אֲפִילּוּ בֵּיעֲתָא בְּכוּתָּחָא לָא לִישְׁרֵי אִינִישׁ בִּמְקוֹם רַבֵּיהּ, לָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּאַפְקִירוּתָא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מִסְתַּיְּיעָא מִילְּתָא לְמֵימְרָא. דְּהָא אֲנָא הֲוָה גְּמִירְנָא לֵיהּ לְהָא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא מִסְתַּיְּיעָא לִי מִילְּתָא לְמֵימַר.
Abaye said that he learned from this situation that which the Sages said: A person should not permit even eating an egg in kutaḥ, a dish made with milk, in his teacher’s vicinity. This is a very simple ruling, as an egg is not meat and may unquestionably be eaten with milk. There are no stringencies that apply to this case, but nevertheless one should not rule even on such a halakha in his teacher’s vicinity. Abaye explained that this is not because it appears disrespectful to teach halakha in one’s teacher’s vicinity, as this is a simple matter that does not require great knowledge of halakha, rather because he will not be successful in saying the matter correctly. An illustration of this principle is what just happened, since I had learned this halakha of Rav and Shmuel, and even so I was unsuccessful in saying it correctly, as I ruled in the vicinity of my teacher, Rav Yosef.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נָתְנָה בְּנָהּ לְמֵינֶקֶת, אוֹ גְּמָלַתּוּ, אוֹ מֵת — מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד. רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סְבוּר לְמִיעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כִּי הָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲמַרָה לְהוּ הָהִיא סָבְתָּא: בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וַאֲסַר לִי רַב נַחְמָן.
§ The Sages taught: If a woman gave her child to a wet nurse during the waiting period, or weaned him, or the child died, she is permitted to marry immediately. It is related that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, thought to act in accordance with this baraita. However, a certain old woman said to them: There was an incident in which I was involved with regard to this issue and Rav Naḥman prohibited it for me.
אִינִי?! וְהָא רַב נַחְמָן שְׁרָא לְהוּ לְבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא! שָׁאנֵי בֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא דְּלָא הָדְרִי בְּהוּ.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Naḥman permit this for the members of the Exilarch’s household? The Gemara answers: The Exilarch’s household is different, since people employed by them do not renege out of fear of the consequences. Consequently, if a woman from that household arranges a wet nurse for her child, it is certain that the wet nurse will keep her commitment, whereas with other people there is a danger that if the mother remarries the child might be left without anyone to feed him.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פַּפֵּי: וְאַתּוּן לָא תִּסְבְּרוּהָ — מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה רְדוּפָה לֵילֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ כַּעַס בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין, אוֹ שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ זָקֵן, אוֹ חוֹלֶה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲקָרָה וּזְקֵנָה אַיְילוֹנִית וּקְטַנָּה, וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד — כּוּלָּן צְרִיכוֹת לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
Rav Pappi said to Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: And do you not maintain that such a marriage is prohibited from that which is taught in a baraita: If a woman frequently went to her father’s house and had been there for a long time; or she had been angry with her husband and separated from him while still in his house; or her husband had been incarcerated in prison; or her husband had gone overseas; or her husband had been old or ill; or if she was a barren woman, or elderly, or a sexually underdeveloped woman, or a minor girl; or if she had miscarried after the death of her husband; or if she was unfit to give birth for any other reason, although in any of these cases there is no concern that she might be pregnant, they must all wait at least three months. The Sages said that a woman must wait for three months between marriages, so there would be no doubt as to who is the father of any child she may give birth to, and they did not distinguish between different women with regard to this decree. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר לֵיאָרֵס וְלִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּגְזֵירוֹתָיו.
However, Rabbi Yosei permits all the aforementioned women to be betrothed and to marry immediately, since there is no concern that they may be pregnant. And Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to all of his decrees. In every place where Rabbi Meir was stringent so as to avoid possibility of error, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion. Consequently, this ruling should apply also to a nursing mother who wishes to remarry; the restriction should apply equally to a woman who had given her child to a wet nurse, or who had weaned him, or whose child had died.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לָאו אַדַּעְתִּין. וְהִלְכְתָא: מֵת — מוּתָּר, גְּמָלַתּוּ — אָסוּר. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵת נָמֵי אָסוּר, דִּלְמָא קָטְלָה לֵיהּ וְאָזְלָא וּמִינַּסְבָא. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וַחֲנַקְתֵּיהּ. וְלָא הִיא, הָהִיא שׁוֹטָה הֲוַאי, דְּלָא עָבְדִי נְשֵׁי דְּחָנְקָן בְּנַיְיהוּ.
They answered him: The matter was not in our mind, meaning that we had forgotten this principle. Nevertheless, the Gemara concludes: The halakha is that if a nursing mother’s child died, the mother is permitted to marry immediately, but if she had weaned him, she is prohibited from marrying, lest she forcibly wean him prematurely. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even if the child died, she is also prohibited from marrying, because if it were permitted when the child dies, there would be concern that she might kill him and then go and get married. It is related that there was an incident where a woman strangled her child for this reason. The Gemara concludes that that is not so, i.e., this incident does not affect the halakha. That woman was insane, and since women do not ordinarily strangle their children, one need not be concerned about this happening.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהּ בֵּן לְהָנִיק — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תָּנִיק עִמּוֹ לֹא בְּנָהּ וְלֹא בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. פָּסְקָה קִימְעָא — אוֹכֶלֶת הַרְבֵּה. לֹא תֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ דְּבָרִים הָרָעִים לְחָלָב.
§ The Sages taught: If someone gave a child to a wet nurse, and she agreed to nurse him for payment, she may not nurse her own child or another woman’s child together with him, in order that she not take away milk from the child she is being paid to nurse. Even if she fixed a small allowance for food with the payment for nursing, she must nevertheless eat large quantities so that she will have enough milk. And she may not eat together with him, i.e., while she is nursing the child, things that are bad for her milk.
הַשְׁתָּא בְּנָהּ אָמְרַתְּ לָא, בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ מִיבַּעְיָא?! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בְּנָהּ הוּא דְּחָיְיסָ[א] עִילָּוֵיהּ מַמְצְיָא לֵיהּ טְפֵי. אֲבָל בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, אִי לָאו דַּהֲוָה לַהּ מוֹתָר לָא הֲוָה מַמְצְיָא לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks about this baraita: Now that you said that she may not nurse her own child together with her client’s child, is it necessary to say that she cannot nurse another woman’s child? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the prohibition is limited to her child, as there is a concern that since she favors him, she will feed him more milk than the other child, but with regard to another woman’s child, if she did not have surplus milk she would not feed him, and therefore it should be permitted, the baraita therefore teaches us not to distinguish between the cases.
פָּסְקָה קִימְעָא — אוֹכֶלֶת הַרְבֵּה. מֵהֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מִשֶּׁלָּהּ.
The baraita said that even if she fixed a small allowance for food, she must eat large quantities. The Gemara asks: From where should she get this food if the allowance cannot cover it? Rav Sheshet said: From her own funds. Because she accepted an obligation to nurse the child, she must take the necessary steps to fulfill her obligation.
לֹא תֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ דְּבָרִים הָרָעִים. מַאי נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: כְּגוֹן כְּשׁוּת וַחֲזִיז וְדָגִים קְטַנִּים וַאֲדָמָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ קָרָא וַחֲבוּשָׁא. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ קוֹרָא וְכוּפְרָא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ כַּמְכָּא וְהַרְסָנָא. מִינַּיְיהוּ פָּסְקִי חֲלָבָא, מִינַּיְיהוּ עָכְרִי חֲלָבָא.
The baraita said: She may not eat together with him things that are bad for her milk. The Gemara asks: What are these foods that are detrimental for milk? Rav Kahana said: For example, hops; and young, green grain sprouts; small fish; and soil. Abaye said: Even pumpkin and quince. Rav Pappa said: Even pumpkin and palm branches with small, unripe dates. Rav Ashi said: Even kutaḥ [kamka] and small fried fish. All these items are bad, as some cause milk to dry up and some cause milk to spoil.
דִּמְשַׁמְּשָׁא בֵּי רִיחְיָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי נִכְפֵּי. דִּמְשַׁמְּשָׁא עַל אַרְעָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי שְׁמוּטֵי. דְּדָרְכָא עַל (רְמָא) [דְּמָא] דַּחֲמָרָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי גִּירְדָּנֵי. דְּאָכְלָה חַרְדְּלָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי זַלְזְלָנֵי. דְּאָכְלָה תַּחְלֵי — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי דּוּלְפָנֵי. דְּאָכְלָה מוֹנִינֵי — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי מְצִיצֵי עֵינָא. דְּאָכְלָה גַּרְגּוּשְׁתָּא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי מְכוֹעָרֵי. דְּשָׁתְיָא שִׁיכְרָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי אוּכָּמֵי. דְּאָכְלָה בִּישְׂרָא וְשָׁתְיָא חַמְרָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי
The Gemara cites other possible consequences of a mother’s behavior that could affect her children: A woman who engages in intercourse in a mill will have epileptic children; one who engages in intercourse on the ground will have long-necked children; one who steps on a donkey’s dung when pregnant will have bald children; one who eats mustard during pregnancy will have gluttonous children; one who eats garden cress [taḥlei] will have tearful children; one who eats fish brine [moninei] will have children with blinking eyes; one who eats soil will have ugly children; one who drinks intoxicating liquor will have black children; one who eats meat and drinks wine during pregnancy will have children who are
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Ontario, Canada
Minnesota, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Ketubot 60
עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם. אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בִּשְׁלָמָא רַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — כׇּל חַד וְחַד כִּי חוּרְפֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: How old does the child have to be so that one can assume that he already recognizes his mother? Rava said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: Three months, and Shmuel said: Thirty days, and Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fifty days. Rav Shimi bar Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with what Rabbi Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara asks: Granted, Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan are in dispute with regard to the difference between fifty days and three months, as it is possible that each baby varies according to its intelligence, as one baby is sufficiently developed at fifty days, while another knows his mother at only three months. However, according to Shmuel, can you find a case like this, a one-month-old baby who recognizes his mother?
כִּי אֲתָא רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל, אָמַר: לָא תְּצִיתִינְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי דְּכָיֵיל יְהוּדָה אֲחִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁמַּכִּירָהּ.
The Gemara relates: When Rami bar Yeḥezkel came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: Do not listen to, i.e., do not accept, those principles that my brother Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, as Shmuel did not establish a particular time with regard to this matter. Rather, this is what Shmuel said: Whenever he recognizes her, i.e., there is no fixed age at which this occurs. One must check each baby to see whether he recognizes his mother.
הָהִיא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב דִּימִי בַּר יוֹסֵף: זִיל בִּדְקֵהּ. אֲזַל אוֹתְבַהּ בְּדָרֵי דִנְשֵׁי, וְשַׁקְלֵיהּ לִבְרַהּ וְקָמְהַדַּר לֵיהּ עֲלַיְיהוּ. כִּי מְטָא לְגַבַּהּ, הֲוָת קָא מְסַוֵּי לְאַפַּהּ כְּבַשְׁתִּנְהִי לְעֵינַהּ מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: נְטֹף עֵינִיךְ, קוּם דְּרַי בְּרִיךְ. סוֹמֵא מְנָא יָדַע? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּרֵיחָא וּבְטַעְמָא.
The Gemara relates: A certain divorcée came before Shmuel, as she did not wish to nurse her son. He said to Rav Dimi bar Yosef: Go and check her, i.e., verify whether the child recognizes his mother. He went, placed her in a row of women, and took her son in his arms and passed him near them to see how the child would react. When the child reached her, he looked at her face with joy, and she averted her eyes from him, as she did not want to look at him. He said to her: Lift up your eyes, get up and take your son, as it is obvious that he knows you. The Gemara asks: If this is so, then how does a blind baby know and recognize his mother? Rav Ashi said: Through smell and through the taste of her milk.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יוֹנֵק תִּינוֹק וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. פֵּירַשׁ לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ וְחָזַר — כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ.
§ Apropos the period of time during which a child nurses, the Gemara continues to debate different aspects of this matter. The Sages taught in a baraita: A child may continue to nurse until the age of twenty-four months, and from this point forward, if he continues to nurse, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal, as a woman’s milk is forbidden to anyone other than a small child; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: A child may continue to nurse even for four or five years, and this is permitted. However, if he ceased, i.e., was weaned, after twenty-four months and then resumed nursing, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal.
אָמַר מָר: מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ. וּרְמִינְהִי: יָכוֹל יְהֵא חֲלֵב מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם טָמֵא. וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהֵקַלְתָּ בְּמַגָּעָהּ — הֶחְמַרְתָּ בַּחֲלָבָהּ, אָדָם שֶׁהֶחְמַרְתָּ בְּמַגָּעוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתַּחְמִיר בַּחֲלָבוֹ?
The Master said in the baraita: From this point forward he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One might have thought that the milk of bipeds, i.e., humans, would be non-kosher like that of a non-kosher animal, based on a logical derivation: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, where you were lenient with regard to its contact, meaning that it does not render people or items impure through contact when it is alive, you were stringent with regard to its milk, which is prohibited, even more so should this be true with regard to a person. An a fortiori inference would indicate that with regard to a person, where you were stringent about contact, as people can render other people and objects impure even when they are alive, one should be stricter. So isn’t it logical that you should be stringent with regard to his milk?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת הַגָּמָל כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא״, הוּא טָמֵא, וְאֵין חֲלֵב מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם טָמֵא, אֶלָּא טָהוֹר. יָכוֹל אוֹצִיא אֶת הֶחָלָב, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַדָּם שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הוּא״ — הוּא טָמֵא, וְאֵין דַּם מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם טָמֵא, אֶלָּא טָהוֹר.
This is as the verse states: “But this you shall not eat, of those that only chew the cud, or of those that only part the hoof; the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:4). The somewhat superfluous word “it” teaches that it alone is impure, but the milk of bipeds is not impure; rather, it is kosher. Furthermore, one might have thought that I should exclude the milk of humans from the prohibition against consumption, as this issue does not apply equally to everyone, since only women produce milk, but I should not exclude from the prohibition human blood, which does apply equally to everyone. Consequently, the verse states “it” with regard to a camel, to say that it alone is impure, whereas the blood of bipeds is not impure, but rather is kosher.
וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוַת פְּרִישָׁה אֵין בּוֹ.
And Rav Sheshet said about this ruling: There is not even a rabbinic command to refrain from consuming human milk. Therefore, this presents a contradiction to the statement that a child who nurses beyond a certain age is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּפָרֵישׁ, הָא דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement that the milk is permitted is referring to when it has been removed from the woman’s body, and that statement, that the milk is forbidden, is referring to when it has not been removed. Fundamentally, human milk is a permitted substance. However, it is prohibited by rabbinic law for anyone other than a very young child to nurse directly from a woman’s breasts, and one who does so is considered like one who consumes milk from a non-kosher animal.
וְחִילּוּפַהּ בְּדָם. כִּדְתַנְיָא: דָּם שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כִּכָּר — גּוֹרְרוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹ. שֶׁבֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם — מוֹצְצוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
And the opposite applies to blood: Human blood that has been removed from the body is forbidden, but if it has not yet been removed, it is permitted. As it is taught in a baraita: If some human blood was on a loaf of bread, one scrapes off the blood and then he may eat the bread. Since the blood was detached from the body, it is forbidden by rabbinic law, but if blood was between the teeth, he may suck it and swallow it without concern, as the blood is permitted if it has not been removed from the body.
אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ חֲבִילָתוֹ עַל כְּתֵיפָיו! אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Master said in the aforementioned baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: A child may continue to nurse even for four or five years. But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if he can carry his package on his shoulder he can continue to nurse? The Gemara answers: This is not a contradiction, since both this and that are one, the same, measure, and the difference between them is only semantic. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מָרִינוּס אוֹמֵר: גּוֹנֵחַ — יוֹנֵק חָלָב בְּשַׁבָּת. מַאי טַעְמָא: יוֹנֵק מְפָרֵק כִּלְאַחַר יָד, וּבִמְקוֹם צַעֲרָא לָא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מָרִינוּס.
On the same topic it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Marinos says: One who is coughing due to an illness that requires milk but did not have milk available may suck milk directly from an animal’s udders on Shabbat, although milking is a prohibited labor on Shabbat. What is the reason? Sucking the milk in this way constitutes an act of extracting in an unusual manner. Although milking is an example of the labor of extracting, a subcategory of the primary category of threshing, it is prohibited by Torah law only when the labor is performed in its typical manner. One who nurses from an animal is extracting the milk in an unusual manner. Such labor is prohibited by rabbinic law, but in a situation involving pain, like one who is coughing, the Sages did not issue a decree. Rabbi Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Marinos.
תַּנְיָא, נַחוּם אִישׁ גַּלְיָא אוֹמֵר: צִינּוֹר שֶׁעָלוּ בּוֹ קַשְׁקַשִּׁין — מְמַעֲכָן בְּרַגְלוֹ בְּצִנְעָא בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. מַאי טַעְמָא — מְתַקֵּן כִּלְאַחַר יָד הוּא, וּבִמְקוֹם פְּסֵידָא לָא גְּזַרוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּנַחוּם אִישׁ גַּלְיָא.
A ruling similar to the previous halakha is taught in a baraita: Naḥum of Galia says: If a drainage pipe is blocked by weeds [kashkashin] and grass, preventing water from running through the pipe, one may crush them with his foot in private on Shabbat without concern that he is performing the labor of preparing a vessel. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this leniency? This is an example of repairing a vessel in an unusual manner, since it is uncommon to fix an item without using a tool or one’s hands. Performing labor in an unusual manner is ordinarily prohibited by rabbinic decree, but in a situation involving financial loss, the Sages did not issue a decree. Rabbi Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum of Galia.
פֵּירַשׁ לְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ וְחָזַר — כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁקֶץ. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, תָּנֵי רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים.
The Gemara continues discussing the aforementioned baraita, which states: If the child ceased nursing after twenty-four months and then resumed, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. The Gemara asks: How long must he cease nursing to be considered weaned? Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva said that Shmuel said: Three days. There are those who say that this was not an amoraic statement, but rather a baraita that is taught by Rav Yehuda bar Ḥaviva before Shmuel: Weaning takes effect after three days.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֵינֶקֶת שֶׁמֵּת בַּעְלָהּ בְּתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּתְאָרֵס וְלֹא תִּינָּשֵׂא
§ The Gemara discusses other halakhot relating to nursing. The Sages taught: A nursing woman whose husband died within twenty-four months of her child’s birth may not be betrothed and may not get married
עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בִּשְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר יוֹסֵף: הֵן הֵן דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, הֵן הֵן דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
until twenty-four months from the day the child was born. The reason for this decree is to protect the child. If she remarries she may become pregnant and may not be able to continue nursing, but her second husband will not be obligated to support the child who is not his son. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda permits getting married after eighteen months. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef said: These words are the same as the statement of Beit Shammai, and those words are the same as the statement of Beit Hillel, i.e., this is an ancient dispute, as Beit Shammai say: Twenty-four months, and Beit Hillel say: Eighteen months.
אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֲנִי אַכְרִיעַ. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ — מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד חֹדֶשׁ. לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר בִּשְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הֶחָלָב נֶעְכָּר אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I will decide. According to the one who says twenty-four months, she may marry after twenty-one months, since even if she gets pregnant, for the first three months of pregnancy she can still continue to nurse. According to the one who says eighteen months, she may marry after fifteen months, since the milk becomes spoiled due to pregnancy only after three months.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְאָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: לִי הִתִּיר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָשֵׂאת לְאַחַר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לֵיאָרֵס בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲדָא, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְעוֹד: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל — הֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: לִי הִתִּיר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא לָשֵׂאת לְאַחַר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּאַתְּ לֵיאָרֵס.
Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Mar Ukva said: Rabbi Ḥanina allowed me to marry a nursing woman after fifteen months. It is related that Abaye’s tenant farmer came before Abaye to ask a question. He said to him: What is the halakha with regard to betrothing a nursing woman after fifteen months? Abaye said to him: One reason it is permitted is that in disputes between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. And furthermore, this is actually a dispute between earlier tanna’im, and when Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute, the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel. And in addition, Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. And Mar Ukva said: Rabbi Ḥanina allowed me to marry after fifteen months, and therefore all the more so you are permitted to betroth her, as you are only betrothing and not marrying her.
כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ, חוּץ מִיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ וְחוּץ מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה בּוֹ. רְהַט בָּתְרֵיהּ תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פַּרְסָא בְּחָלָא, וְלָא אַדְרְכֵיהּ.
When Abaye came before Rav Yosef and told him of the incident, Rav Yosef said to him in response: Rav and Shmuel both say: She must wait twenty-four months before even becoming betrothed, excluding the day that the child was born and excluding the day she became betrothed. When Abaye heard this, he ran three parasangs after his tenant farmer, and some say that he ran one parasang [parsa] through sand. He wanted to inform him that he should not rely on the leniency, but rather he should act in accordance with Rav and Shmuel, who prohibited the betrothal, but he did not succeed in catching up to him.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן אֲפִילּוּ בֵּיעֲתָא בְּכוּתָּחָא לָא לִישְׁרֵי אִינִישׁ בִּמְקוֹם רַבֵּיהּ, לָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּאַפְקִירוּתָא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מִסְתַּיְּיעָא מִילְּתָא לְמֵימְרָא. דְּהָא אֲנָא הֲוָה גְּמִירְנָא לֵיהּ לְהָא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא מִסְתַּיְּיעָא לִי מִילְּתָא לְמֵימַר.
Abaye said that he learned from this situation that which the Sages said: A person should not permit even eating an egg in kutaḥ, a dish made with milk, in his teacher’s vicinity. This is a very simple ruling, as an egg is not meat and may unquestionably be eaten with milk. There are no stringencies that apply to this case, but nevertheless one should not rule even on such a halakha in his teacher’s vicinity. Abaye explained that this is not because it appears disrespectful to teach halakha in one’s teacher’s vicinity, as this is a simple matter that does not require great knowledge of halakha, rather because he will not be successful in saying the matter correctly. An illustration of this principle is what just happened, since I had learned this halakha of Rav and Shmuel, and even so I was unsuccessful in saying it correctly, as I ruled in the vicinity of my teacher, Rav Yosef.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נָתְנָה בְּנָהּ לְמֵינֶקֶת, אוֹ גְּמָלַתּוּ, אוֹ מֵת — מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד. רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סְבוּר לְמִיעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כִּי הָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲמַרָה לְהוּ הָהִיא סָבְתָּא: בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וַאֲסַר לִי רַב נַחְמָן.
§ The Sages taught: If a woman gave her child to a wet nurse during the waiting period, or weaned him, or the child died, she is permitted to marry immediately. It is related that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, thought to act in accordance with this baraita. However, a certain old woman said to them: There was an incident in which I was involved with regard to this issue and Rav Naḥman prohibited it for me.
אִינִי?! וְהָא רַב נַחְמָן שְׁרָא לְהוּ לְבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא! שָׁאנֵי בֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא דְּלָא הָדְרִי בְּהוּ.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Naḥman permit this for the members of the Exilarch’s household? The Gemara answers: The Exilarch’s household is different, since people employed by them do not renege out of fear of the consequences. Consequently, if a woman from that household arranges a wet nurse for her child, it is certain that the wet nurse will keep her commitment, whereas with other people there is a danger that if the mother remarries the child might be left without anyone to feed him.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פַּפֵּי: וְאַתּוּן לָא תִּסְבְּרוּהָ — מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה רְדוּפָה לֵילֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ כַּעַס בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין, אוֹ שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ זָקֵן, אוֹ חוֹלֶה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲקָרָה וּזְקֵנָה אַיְילוֹנִית וּקְטַנָּה, וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד — כּוּלָּן צְרִיכוֹת לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
Rav Pappi said to Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: And do you not maintain that such a marriage is prohibited from that which is taught in a baraita: If a woman frequently went to her father’s house and had been there for a long time; or she had been angry with her husband and separated from him while still in his house; or her husband had been incarcerated in prison; or her husband had gone overseas; or her husband had been old or ill; or if she was a barren woman, or elderly, or a sexually underdeveloped woman, or a minor girl; or if she had miscarried after the death of her husband; or if she was unfit to give birth for any other reason, although in any of these cases there is no concern that she might be pregnant, they must all wait at least three months. The Sages said that a woman must wait for three months between marriages, so there would be no doubt as to who is the father of any child she may give birth to, and they did not distinguish between different women with regard to this decree. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר לֵיאָרֵס וְלִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּגְזֵירוֹתָיו.
However, Rabbi Yosei permits all the aforementioned women to be betrothed and to marry immediately, since there is no concern that they may be pregnant. And Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to all of his decrees. In every place where Rabbi Meir was stringent so as to avoid possibility of error, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion. Consequently, this ruling should apply also to a nursing mother who wishes to remarry; the restriction should apply equally to a woman who had given her child to a wet nurse, or who had weaned him, or whose child had died.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לָאו אַדַּעְתִּין. וְהִלְכְתָא: מֵת — מוּתָּר, גְּמָלַתּוּ — אָסוּר. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵת נָמֵי אָסוּר, דִּלְמָא קָטְלָה לֵיהּ וְאָזְלָא וּמִינַּסְבָא. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וַחֲנַקְתֵּיהּ. וְלָא הִיא, הָהִיא שׁוֹטָה הֲוַאי, דְּלָא עָבְדִי נְשֵׁי דְּחָנְקָן בְּנַיְיהוּ.
They answered him: The matter was not in our mind, meaning that we had forgotten this principle. Nevertheless, the Gemara concludes: The halakha is that if a nursing mother’s child died, the mother is permitted to marry immediately, but if she had weaned him, she is prohibited from marrying, lest she forcibly wean him prematurely. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even if the child died, she is also prohibited from marrying, because if it were permitted when the child dies, there would be concern that she might kill him and then go and get married. It is related that there was an incident where a woman strangled her child for this reason. The Gemara concludes that that is not so, i.e., this incident does not affect the halakha. That woman was insane, and since women do not ordinarily strangle their children, one need not be concerned about this happening.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהּ בֵּן לְהָנִיק — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תָּנִיק עִמּוֹ לֹא בְּנָהּ וְלֹא בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. פָּסְקָה קִימְעָא — אוֹכֶלֶת הַרְבֵּה. לֹא תֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ דְּבָרִים הָרָעִים לְחָלָב.
§ The Sages taught: If someone gave a child to a wet nurse, and she agreed to nurse him for payment, she may not nurse her own child or another woman’s child together with him, in order that she not take away milk from the child she is being paid to nurse. Even if she fixed a small allowance for food with the payment for nursing, she must nevertheless eat large quantities so that she will have enough milk. And she may not eat together with him, i.e., while she is nursing the child, things that are bad for her milk.
הַשְׁתָּא בְּנָהּ אָמְרַתְּ לָא, בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ מִיבַּעְיָא?! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בְּנָהּ הוּא דְּחָיְיסָ[א] עִילָּוֵיהּ מַמְצְיָא לֵיהּ טְפֵי. אֲבָל בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, אִי לָאו דַּהֲוָה לַהּ מוֹתָר לָא הֲוָה מַמְצְיָא לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks about this baraita: Now that you said that she may not nurse her own child together with her client’s child, is it necessary to say that she cannot nurse another woman’s child? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the prohibition is limited to her child, as there is a concern that since she favors him, she will feed him more milk than the other child, but with regard to another woman’s child, if she did not have surplus milk she would not feed him, and therefore it should be permitted, the baraita therefore teaches us not to distinguish between the cases.
פָּסְקָה קִימְעָא — אוֹכֶלֶת הַרְבֵּה. מֵהֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מִשֶּׁלָּהּ.
The baraita said that even if she fixed a small allowance for food, she must eat large quantities. The Gemara asks: From where should she get this food if the allowance cannot cover it? Rav Sheshet said: From her own funds. Because she accepted an obligation to nurse the child, she must take the necessary steps to fulfill her obligation.
לֹא תֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ דְּבָרִים הָרָעִים. מַאי נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: כְּגוֹן כְּשׁוּת וַחֲזִיז וְדָגִים קְטַנִּים וַאֲדָמָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ קָרָא וַחֲבוּשָׁא. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ קוֹרָא וְכוּפְרָא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ כַּמְכָּא וְהַרְסָנָא. מִינַּיְיהוּ פָּסְקִי חֲלָבָא, מִינַּיְיהוּ עָכְרִי חֲלָבָא.
The baraita said: She may not eat together with him things that are bad for her milk. The Gemara asks: What are these foods that are detrimental for milk? Rav Kahana said: For example, hops; and young, green grain sprouts; small fish; and soil. Abaye said: Even pumpkin and quince. Rav Pappa said: Even pumpkin and palm branches with small, unripe dates. Rav Ashi said: Even kutaḥ [kamka] and small fried fish. All these items are bad, as some cause milk to dry up and some cause milk to spoil.
דִּמְשַׁמְּשָׁא בֵּי רִיחְיָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי נִכְפֵּי. דִּמְשַׁמְּשָׁא עַל אַרְעָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי שְׁמוּטֵי. דְּדָרְכָא עַל (רְמָא) [דְּמָא] דַּחֲמָרָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי גִּירְדָּנֵי. דְּאָכְלָה חַרְדְּלָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי זַלְזְלָנֵי. דְּאָכְלָה תַּחְלֵי — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי דּוּלְפָנֵי. דְּאָכְלָה מוֹנִינֵי — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי מְצִיצֵי עֵינָא. דְּאָכְלָה גַּרְגּוּשְׁתָּא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי מְכוֹעָרֵי. דְּשָׁתְיָא שִׁיכְרָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי אוּכָּמֵי. דְּאָכְלָה בִּישְׂרָא וְשָׁתְיָא חַמְרָא — הָווּ לַהּ בְּנֵי
The Gemara cites other possible consequences of a mother’s behavior that could affect her children: A woman who engages in intercourse in a mill will have epileptic children; one who engages in intercourse on the ground will have long-necked children; one who steps on a donkey’s dung when pregnant will have bald children; one who eats mustard during pregnancy will have gluttonous children; one who eats garden cress [taḥlei] will have tearful children; one who eats fish brine [moninei] will have children with blinking eyes; one who eats soil will have ugly children; one who drinks intoxicating liquor will have black children; one who eats meat and drinks wine during pregnancy will have children who are
