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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 5, 2022 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 61

Today’s daf is sponsored by Lisa Malik & Adi Wyner in honor of Sari & Mark Winick’s anniversary. “We feel blessed to have met you during our sabbaticals in Israel & are thrilled that you came to Jerusalem last month for the wedding of our daughter, Rivkah, to Charlie Gottlieb. May our friendship continue to grow as we continue to eat out at meat restaurants & discuss politics, religion, aliyah, and Talmud sugyot that appeal to men of leisure! Enjoy your anniversary!”
What should be avoided during pregnancy or when conceiving? If there is a debate between the husband and wife about whether the woman should nurse the baby or hire a wet nurse, who do we side with? On what does it depend? If a woman has to do seven jobs for the household, why if she hires one maidservant, is she only exempted from three jobs? Why doesn’t the maidservant do all seven? And furthermore, with two maidservants. What jobs does the woman need to do herself even if she has four maidservants? These are the same jobs that a woman cannot do for her husband when she is a nidda as they are considered intimate activities. The same Rabbi who brought that halacha also taught about making sure to give food to the waiter before the meal if they will cause him to crave the foods he is serving as cravings can be dangerous. Several stories are brought to stress the danger and seriousness of cravings. Can a husband make a vow to not have relations with his wife for a particular period of time? If so, for how long? What is the expectation of how often a husband needs to have relations with his wife, if she so wishes? There are different times depending on one’s job. On what does it depend? A husband can leave home for thirty days to study Torah. how long can others go away for their work?

ื‘ืจื™ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื™ืขื™ ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ืขื™ื ื ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ื›ื•ื•ืจื™ ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ื—ื™ื ื ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ื›ืจืคืกื ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ื–ื™ื•ืชื ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ื›ื•ืกื‘ืจืชื ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ืืชืจื•ื’ื ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ืจื™ื—ื ื™ ื‘ืจืชื™ื” ื“ืฉื‘ื•ืจ ืžืœื›ื ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื” ืืžื” ืืชืจื•ื’ื ื•ื”ื•ื• ืžืกืงื™ ืœื” ืœืงืžื™ื” ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืจื™ืฉ ืจื™ื—ื ื™

healthy; one who eats eggs will have large-eyed children; one who eats fish will have graceful children; one who eats celery will have beautiful children; one who eats coriander [kusbarta] will have corpulent children; and one who eats etrogim will have sweet-smelling children. It is related with regard to the daughter of King Shapur of Persia, that her mother ate etrogim while pregnant with her and they used to place her in front of her father on top of all the spices, as she was so fragrant.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ื“ืง ืœืŸ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื”ื ื™ืง ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ืœื”ื ื™ืง ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฆืขืจื ื“ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื”ื ื™ืง ื•ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืฉืœื ืœื”ื ื™ืง ืžื”ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœืื• ืื•ืจื—ื” ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื” ื”ื™ื ืื•ืจื—ื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืœืื• ืื•ืจื—ื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ืื• ื‘ืชืจ ื“ื™ื“ื” ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

ยง Rav Huna said: Rav Huna bar แธคinnana tested us, by asking: If she says that she wants to nurse and he says that he does not want her to nurse but rather to give the child to a wet nurse, we accede to her desires, as she is the one suffering from engorgement of her breasts. However, if he says that he wants her to nurse and she says that she does not want to nurse, what is the halakha? He then narrowed the scope of the question: Anywhere that she is not accustomed, as the women of her family generally do not nurse their children but give them to wet nurses instead, we accede to her desires. However, if she is accustomed to nursing and he is not accustomed, i.e., the women of her family generally nurse their babies but the women in his family do not, what is the halakha: Do we follow his wishes to follow her family custom or do we follow her wishes to follow his family custom?

ื•ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื ืขื•ืœื” ืขืžื• ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืจื“ืช ืขืžื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืงืจืื” ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ื™ืชื• ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืจื™ื“ืชื• ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืžื”ื›ื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื ื”ื™ืชื” ืื ื›ืœ ื—ื™ ืœื—ื™ื™ื ื ื™ืชื ื” ื•ืœื ืœืฆืขืจ ื ื™ืชื ื”

And we answered his question from this amoraic statement: When a woman marries a man, she ascends with him to his socioeconomic status, if it is higher than hers, but she does not descend with him if his status is lower. Consequently, if his family is not accustomed to nurse, she is not obligated to nurse either. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is derived from: โ€œShe is a manโ€™s wifeโ€ (Genesis 20:3). The Gemara explains: The word used here for โ€œwife [beโ€™ula]โ€ hints through similar spelling that she ascends in status with the ascension [aliya] of her husband but does not descend with the descent of her husband. Rabbi Elazar said: There is a hint to this principle from here: โ€œAs she was the mother of all livingโ€ (Genesis 3:20), which indicates that she was given to her husband for living with him, but was not given to suffer pain with him.

ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื ืฉืืจื ืขื‘ื“ื ื•ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืขื™ื™ืœื™ืช ืœืš ืื™ืชืชื ื‘ื—ืจื™ืงืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื ื˜ืจื—ื ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืงืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ืš ืžืืŸ ื˜ืจื—

ยง The mishna states that if she brought him one maidservant into the marriage with her, she does not need to grind wheat, bake, or wash clothes. The Gemara infers from this statement that she must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let the wife say to him: I brought you a woman in my place [baแธฅarikai] who can perform all the tasks I am supposed to do, and the wife should be completely exempt. The Gemara answers: This is not a valid argument because the husband can say to her: This maidservant toils for me and for herself like any other woman, but who will toil for you? It is necessary for the wife to do some work in order to cover some of her own expenses.

ืฉืชื™ื ืื™ื ื” ืžื‘ืฉืœืช ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžื ื™ืงื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื ืฉืืจื ืขื‘ื“ื ื•ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืขื™ื™ืœื™ืช ืœืš ืื™ืชืชื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื“ื˜ืจื—ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื—ื“ื ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ื•ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ืงืžื™ ืื•ืจื—ื™ ื•ืคืจื—ื™ ืžืืŸ ื˜ืจื—

The mishna further said that if she brought him two maidservants, she does not need to cook and does not need to nurse her child. The Gemara infers: She must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let the wife say to him: I brought you another woman who can toil for me and for herself, and one who can toil for you and for herself. Consequently, I do not need to do any work at all. The Gemara answers: This is also not a valid argument because he can say to her: Who is going to toil for the guests and wayfarers who will come because we are a large household? There are still other tasks that need to be performed.

ืฉืœืฉ ืื™ื ื” ืžืฆืขืช ื”ืžื˜ื” ื”ื ืฉืืจื ืขื‘ื“ื ื•ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืขื™ื™ืœื™ืช ืœืš ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ืœืื•ืจื—ื™ ื•ืคืจื—ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ื ืคื™ืฉ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืชื ื ืคื™ืฉ ืื•ืจื—ื™ ื•ืคืจื—ื™

The mishna further said that if she brought him three maidservants, she does not need to make his bed or make thread from wool. The Gemara infers: She must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let her say to him: I brought you another woman to toil for the guests and wayfarers, in addition to one to toil for herself and for me, and another to toil for herself and for you. Therefore, I do not need to do any work at all. The Gemara answers: This is also not a valid argument because he can say to her: When the members of the house increase, the number of guests and wayfarers also increases and therefore there is still more work to be done.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืืจื‘ืข ื ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืข ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื ืคื™ืฉื™ ืœื”ื• ืžืกื™ื™ืขืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™

The Gemara asks: If so, then even if she brought him four maidservants as well, she should also have to work, as there will be many more guests. But the mishna says that if she brought four maidservants she does not need to do anything. The Gemara answers: When there are four, since there are many of them, they assist one another and can complete all the necessary tasks.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืœื ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœื• ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืชื ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืฆืžืฆืžื” ืœื• ืžืฉืœื”

Rav แธคana, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani, said: This does not necessarily mean that she actually brought him maidservants. Rather, once she is able to bring him maidservants, i.e., once her dowry is sufficiently large to buy maidservants, then she is exempt from performing the tasks, although she did not actually bring him maidservants. The Sages taught: Whether she brought him actual maidservants or whether she reduced her own needs in order to release enough money to bring a maidservant to work, she is exempt from the tasks.

ืืจื‘ืข ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืงืชื“ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืงืชื“ืจื ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ื–ื’ืช ืœื• ื›ื•ืก ื•ืžืฆืขืช ืœื• ืืช ื”ืžื˜ื” ื•ืžืจื—ืฆืช ืœื• ืคื ื™ื• ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื•

ยง The mishna says that if she brought him four maidservants, she may sit in an chair and not do anything. Rav Yitzแธฅak bar แธคananya said that Rav Huna said: Although they said that she may sit in a chair and does not need to work, she should still pour his cup; and make his bed; and wash his face, hands, and feet, as these responsibilities are not household tasks that can be delegated to a maidservant. Rather, they are gestures of affection toward her husband.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื›ืœ ืžืœืื›ื•ืช ืฉื”ืืฉื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื ื“ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืžื–ื™ื’ืช ื”ื›ื•ืก ื•ื”ืฆืขืช ื”ืžื˜ื” ื•ื”ืจื—ืฆืช ืคื ื™ื• ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื•

Rav Yitzแธฅak bar แธคananya also said that Rav Huna said a similar halakha: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a menstruating woman may similarly perform for her husband, except for: Pouring his cup; and making his bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet. As explained above, these are acts of affection. If she is menstruating she should not perform them, so as not to lead to forbidden intercourse.

ื•ื”ืฆืขืช ื”ืžื˜ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื” ื•ืžื–ื™ื’ืช ื”ื›ื•ืก ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžื—ืœืคื ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ื™ืชื”ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื ื“ืฉืžืืœื ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืืคื•ืžื ื“ื›ื•ื‘ื ืจื‘ื ืื‘ื™ ืกื“ื™ื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืฉืจืฉื™ืคื

And With regard to the prohibition against making the husbandโ€™s bed, Rava said: We said this only if she made the bed in front of him, but if it was not in front of him, we have no problem with it. With regard to the prohibition against pouring his cup, the Gemara comments: Shmuelโ€™s wife would change her practice toward him during her menstruation period and pour with her left hand, since if she made some change in the manner of pouring, this would serve as a reminder of her status and mitigate the concern that it might lead to intimacy. Abayeโ€™s wife would place his cup on top of a barrel, Ravaโ€™s wife would place it on his pillow, and Rav Pappaโ€™s wife would place it on the bench to create a change.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ื›ืœ ืžืฉื”ื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ืฉืžืฉ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉืžืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืฉื ื” ื›ื•ืœื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ื‘ืชืงื•ืคืช ืชืžื•ื–

ยง Apropos statements by Rav Yitzแธฅak ben แธคananya, the Gemara cites other statements in his name. Rav Yitzแธฅak bar แธคananya said that Rav Huna said: All foods may be withheld from before the waiter, as one who is a waiter at the meal must wait until the guests have eaten from every food and only then may he eat, except for meat and wine, as these foods arouse the appetite more and the waiter would suffer if he could not eat them together with the other participants. Rav แธคisda said: This is referring only to fatty meat and aged wine. Rava said: It applies to fatty meat all year round but aged wine only during the season of Tammuz, in the summer. Due to the heat, the aroma of the wine is more pervasive at that time.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ืžื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืื™ื™ืชื• ืœื™ื” ืชื‘ืฉื™ืœื ื“ืืจื“ื™ ื•ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืื™ืกืชื›ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ืžื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืื™ื™ืชื• ืœื™ื” ื’ืจื’ืœื™ื“ื™ ื“ืœื™ืคืชื ื‘ื—ืœื ื•ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืื™ืกืชื›ื ื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชืžืจืชื ื“ื”ื ื•ื ื™ืชื ื›ืœืœื ื“ืžื™ืœืชื ื›ืœ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืจื™ื—ื ื•ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงื™ื•ื”ื

Rav Anan bar Taแธฅalifa said: I was once standing before Mar Shmuel, and they brought him a cooked dish of mushrooms, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered due to the craving that I suffered. Rav Ashi said: I was once standing before Rav Kahana, and they brought him slices [gargelidei] of turnip in vinegar, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered. Rav Pappa said: Even a fragrant date should be offered to the waiter. The Gemara concludes: The principle of the matter is: One should offer some of everything that either has an aroma or that has a sharp taste to whomever is present when it is served, so that no one suffer by being unable to partake of these foods.

ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืจ ืื™ื”ื™ ื•ืžื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื”ื™ ื—ื“ ืกืคื™ ืžื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื ื•ืžื™ื ื ื•ื—ื“ ืกืคื™ ืžื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื ืžืจ ืžืฉืชืขื™ ืืœื™ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื•ืžืจ ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื™ ืืœื™ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื”

It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer.

ื”ื ื”ื• ืชืจืชื™ืŸ ื—ืกื™ื“ื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ื•ืจื‘ ืคื ื—ืก ื‘ื ื™ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืจ ืงื“ื™ื ืกืคื™ ื•ืžืจ ืžืื—ืจ ืกืคื™ ื“ืงื“ื™ื ืกืคื™ ืืœื™ื”ื• ืžืฉืชืขื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื“ืžืื—ืจ ืกืคื™ ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื™ ืืœื™ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื”

Similarly, the Gemara relates an incident with regard to two pious men, and some say they were Rav Mari and Rav Pineแธฅas, the sons of Rav แธคisda: One Sage would give the waiter something to eat before the meal, and the other Sage would give the waiter something to eat after the guests had eaten. With regard to the one who gave it to him earlier, Elijah spoke with him. But with regard to the one who gave it to him later, Elijah did not speak with him.

ืืžื™ืžืจ ื•ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื•ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื•ื• ืงื ื™ืชื‘ื™ ืืคื™ืชื—ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืื–ื’ื•ืจ ืžืœื›ื ื—ืœื™ืฃ ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ืื˜ื•ืจื ื’ื ื“ืžืœื›ื ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to this matter: Ameimar and Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting at the entrance to the house of King Izgur. The kingโ€™s chief butler was passing by with various foods. Rav Ashi saw Mar Zutraโ€™s

ื“ื—ื•ื•ืจ ืืคื™ื” ืฉืงืœ ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขืชื™ื” ืื ื— ืœื™ื” ื‘ืคื•ืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืคืกื“ืช ืœืกืขื•ื“ืชื ื“ืžืœื›ื ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืชื™ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžืืŸ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื›ื™ ืคืกื™ืœ ืœืžืื›ืœ ื“ืžืœื›ื ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื—ื–ืื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื“ืงื• ื•ืœื ืืฉื›ื—ื• ืฉืงืœ ืืฆื‘ืขืชื™ื” ืื ื— ืขืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื ืžื™ ื‘ื“ืงื™ืชื• ื‘ื“ืงื• ืืฉื›ื—ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืกืžื›ืช ืื ื™ืกื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื—ื–ืื™ ืจื•ื— ืฆืจืขืช ื“ืงื ืคืจื—ื” ืขื™ืœื•ื™ื”

face blanch because he craved the food, so he took some of the food with his finger and put it in Mar Zutraโ€™s mouth. The chief butler said to him: You have spoiled the kingโ€™s meal, as now he will not eat from it. The kingโ€™s soldiers who were there said to him: Why did you do this? He said to them: The one who makes such awful dishes is the one who actually spoiled the kingโ€™s food. They said to him: Why do you say this? He said to them: I saw something else, i.e., a leprous infection, in this meat. They checked and didnโ€™t find anything. He took his finger and placed it on the food and said to them: Did you check here? They then checked that spot and found the infection. The Sages said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that you relied on a miracle and assumed that leprosy would in fact be found there? He said to them: I saw a leprous spirit hovering over the food and realized that it had this defect.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืจื•ืžืื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ืžื™ื ืกื‘ืช ืœื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืœื ืื–ื™ืœ ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืจื™ืžื ื™ ืคืœื™ ื•ืื›ืœ ืงืžื” ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื“ืฆืขืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืœืขืชื™ื” ื•ืœื ื”ื‘ ืœื” ืขื“ ื“ื–ื’ ืœื” ืœืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื™ ืžืกื™ื ื ืœืš ืžื™ื ืกื‘ืช ืœื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืื–ื™ืœ ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืจื™ืžื ื™ ืคืœื™ ื•ืื›ืœ ืงืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื“ืฆืขืจื™ ืœืš ืชื•ืฃ ืฉื“ืื™ ืชื•ืฃ ืฉื“ืื™ ืขื“ ื“ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื•ืฆื ื™ืจืงื ื•ืืชืกื™ืืช

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to a similar subject: A certain Roman said to a certain woman: Will you marry me? She said to him: No. In order to convince her, he went and brought pomegranates and peeled them and ate them in front of her and did not give her any of them. The aroma of the pomegranates caused her mouth to water, so she swallowed all of the saliva that caused her anguish, but he did not give her any until she became ill and bloated. Ultimately, he said to her: If I cure you, will you marry me? She said to him: Yes. He went and brought pomegranates, peeled them and ate them in front of her. He said to her: All of the saliva that causes you anguish, spit it out, spit it out. She did this until something like a green leaf came out of her, and then she was cured.

ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ืฆืžืจ ื‘ืฆืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื›ื•ืคื” ืœื ืœืขืžื•ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืœืขืžื•ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ืœื™ืชืŸ ืชื‘ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืื‘ืœ ื›ื•ืคื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืชื‘ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ืงืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืื™ื ื• ื›ื•ืคื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื‘ืคืฉืชืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืคืฉืชืŸ ืžืกืจื™ื— ืืช ื”ืคื” ื•ืžืฉืจื‘ื˜ ืืช ื”ืฉืคืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื›ื™ืชื ื ืจื•ืžืื”

ยง The mishna says that a wife must make thread from wool. The Gemara infers: She must make thread from wool, but she is not obligated to do so from flax. The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: A husband may not compel his wife to stand before his father and serve him, or to stand before his son and serve him, or to place straw before his animals, i.e., horses and donkeys, but he can compel her to place straw before his cattle, i.e., cows and bulls. Rabbi Yehuda said: He also cannot compel her to make thread from flax, because flax, while it is being spun, causes the mouth to smell foul and the lips to stiffen. The Gemara comments: This applies only to Roman flax, which causes the most damage.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœื• ืžืื” ืฉืคื—ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ

ยง The mishna continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he may compel her to make thread from wool, since idleness leads to licentiousness. Rav Malkiyyu said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ืฉืคื•ื“ ืฉืคื—ื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ืžื•ืช ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื•

Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rav Ika, said: The halakha discussed in tractate Beitza (28b) that a skewer that had been used for roasting meat but no longer has an olive-bulk of meat on it may be moved to a corner on a Festival; the halakha with regard to maidservants in the mishna here; and the halakha discussed in tractate Nidda (52a) that if a girl has two hair follicles in her pubic region, even if there are no hairs growing from them, she is considered to have reached majority and may perform แธฅalitza; these three halakhot were all stated by Rav Malkiyyu.

ื‘ืœื•ืจื™ืช ืืคืจ ืžืงืœื” ื•ื’ื‘ื™ื ื” ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื

However, the halakha discussed in tractate Avoda Zara (29a) that a Jew who cuts the hair of a pagan must stop at a distance of three fingerbreadths on every side before he reaches his forelock, as the pagans would grow their forelocks for idolatry and the Jew must not appear as if he were dressing the forelock for idolatrous purposes; and the halakha discussed in tractate Makkot (21a) that one may not place burnt ashes on a wound, as it looks like a tattoo; and the halakha discussed in tractate Avoda Zara (35b) that cheese made by a gentile is forbidden, because gentiles smooth the surface of their cheese with lard; these three halakhot were all stated by a different Sage named Rav Malkiya.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื ืฉืžืขืชืชื ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื• ื•ืกื™ืžื ืš ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืžืœื›ืชื ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืฉืคื—ื•ืช

Rav Pappa said: The halakhot mentioned above that relate to a mishna or a baraita were stated by Rav Malkiya, whereas amoraic statements of halakhot that are not related to a mishna or baraita were taught by Rav Malkiyyu. And your mnemonic to remember this is: The mishna is a queen [malketa], indicating that the comments that are referring to a mishna were made by Rav Malkiya, whose name is similar to the Aramaic term for queen. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rav Ika, and Rav Pappa? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha concerning maidservants. According to Rabbi แธคanina, this halakha was stated by Rav Malkiyyu, whereas Rav Pappa holds that it was taught by Rav Malkiya, since it is referring to a dispute in a mishna.

ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชื ื ืงืžื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืžื™ื˜ืœืœื ื‘ื’ื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืงื™ื˜ื ื™ื™ืชื ื•ื ื“ืจืฉื™ืจ

ยง The mishna says: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who vows that his wife is prohibited from doing any work must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract, since idleness leads to idiocy. The Gemara asks: This is essentially the same as the opinion of the first tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, who said that idleness leads to licentiousness. The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case when she plays with small dogs [guriyyata kitanyata] or with games [nadrashir] like chess. Since there is something occupying her she is not in danger of idiocy, but occupying oneself with diversions of this type may still lead to licentiousness.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื“ื™ืจ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืžืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื”ืžื˜ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืช ืื—ืช

MISHNA: With regard to one who vows that his wife may not derive benefit from marital relations with him, Beit Shammai say: He may maintain this situation for up to two weeks, but beyond that he must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. Beit Hillel say: He must divorce her if it continues beyond one week.

ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœืชืœืžื•ื“ ืชื•ืจื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื”ืคื•ืขืœื™ื ืฉื‘ืช ืื—ืช ื”ืขื•ื ื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื˜ื™ื™ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ืคื•ืขืœื™ื ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื—ืžืจื™ื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื’ืžืœื™ื ืื—ืช ืœืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื”ืกืคื ื™ื ืื—ืช ืœืฉืฉื” ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ

Apropos the husbandโ€™s obligation to his wife regarding marital relations, the Gemara mentions other aspects of this issue: Students may leave their homes and travel in order to learn Torah without their wivesโ€™ permission for up to thirty days, and laborers may leave their homes without their wivesโ€™ permission for up to one week. The set interval defining the frequency of a husbandโ€™s conjugal obligation to his wife stated in the Torah (see Exodus 21:10), unless the couple stipulated otherwise, varies according to the manโ€™s occupation and proximity to his home: Men of leisure, who do not work, must engage in marital relations every day, laborers must do so twice a week, donkey drivers once a week, camel drivers once every thirty days, and sailors once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื’ืžืจื™ ืžื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื ืงื‘ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื’ืžืจื™ ืžื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื–ื›ืจ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Beit Shammai say a husband may force abstinence on his wife by a vow for a period of up to two weeks without being compelled to divorce her? They derive this from the halakha that a woman who gave birth to a female is ritually impure and prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations with her husband for two weeks after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:5). From this they derive that a period of up to two weeks of abstinence is not deemed undue suffering. And from where do Beit Hillel derive their opinion? They derive it from a woman who gave birth to a male, as she is ritually impure for one week (see Leviticus 12:1โ€“4).

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื ืžื™ ื ื’ืžืจื• ืžื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื ืงื‘ื” ืื™ ืžื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื’ืžืจื™ ืœื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืœื ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžื ื“ื” ื’ืžืจื™ ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And if this is so, Beit Hillel should also derive the halakha from a woman who gave birth to a female, since it is clear that the Torah does at times mandate a period of abstinence longer than one week. The Gemara answers: If they derived it from a woman who gave birth, this is indeed how they would have derived it. Rather, Beit Hillel derived it from the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from marital relations for seven days according to Torah law.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืžืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื ื’ืจื™ื ืœื” ืžืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื ื’ืจื™ื ืœื”

The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that one should derive a common matter from a common matter. Consequently, they derive the halakha of a permitted abstinence by a husband who vowed not to engage in marital relations with his wife from the halakha of a menstruating woman, since both are common cases. And one Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that one should derive a matter that one caused, such as a vow, from a different matter that he caused, i.e., childbirth, and not from menstruation, which was not caused by him at all.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืžืคืจืฉ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืกืชื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืœืืœืชืจ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืกืชื ื ืžื™ ื™ืžืชื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ืžืฆื ืคืชื— ืœื ื“ืจื•

Rav said: The dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai concerns one who specifies the given period of time in his vow, but if he vowed not to engage in marital relations with her for an unspecified period of time, all agree that he must divorce her immediately and give her the payment for her marriage contract. The reason is that since he did not indicate how long he intended to keep the vow, her suffering begins immediately. And Shmuel said: Even with regard to an unspecified vow he should also wait for the same period of time, as perhaps he will find an extenuation enabling the dissolution of his vow and then he will not need to divorce her.

ื”ื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื“ื™ืจ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืžืœื™ื”ื ื•ืช ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื™ืขืžื™ื“ ืคืจื ืก ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ื™ืชืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืžืคืจืฉ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืกืชื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืœืืœืชืจ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืกืชื ื ืžื™ ื™ืžืชื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ืžืฆื ืคืชื— ืœื ื“ืจื•

The Gemara asks: Didnโ€™t they disagree about this issue once already? As we learned in a mishna (70a): In the case of one who vows that his wife is prohibited from benefiting from him or his property, if his vow will remain in effect for up to thirty days, he must appoint a trustee to support her. But if the vow will remain in effect for more than that amount of time, he must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. And Rav said there: They taught this only with regard to a case where he specifies a limited time during which the vow would be in effect, but if he vows without specification, he must divorce her immediately and give her the payment for her marriage contract. And Shmuel said: Even when he vowed without specification, he should also wait, as perhaps he will discover an extenuation enabling the dissolution of his vow.

ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ืคืจื ืก ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ืคืจื ืก ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื”ืš ืงืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ื ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืฆืจื™ื›ื

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to cite the dispute in both cases, as if it were stated only with regard to this case, of one who vows not to engage in marital relations, one might think that in this case Rav says he must divorce her because there is no possibility of appointing a trustee, but that with regard to that halakha, in the case when he vows not to provide sustenance, which can be provided by a trustee, one would say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that he should wait. Conversely, if the dispute was stated with regard to that case, where a trustee can be appointed, one might think that in that case Shmuel said to wait, but in this case of one who vows not to engage in marital relations, one might say that Shmuel concedes to Rav. Therefore, it is necessary to cite the dispute in both cases.

ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœืชืœืžื•ื“ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื›ืžื” ื›ืžื” ื“ื‘ืขื™

ยง The mishna said that students may leave their homes and travel for up to thirty days in order to learn Torah, without their wivesโ€™ permission. The Gemara asks: If they went with permission, for how long can they go? The Gemara expresses wonderment at this question: If they went with the permission of their wives, they can go for as long as they want. If the husband and wife agree on this, why is there any reason for the court to intervene?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 56-62 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn if a woman can forgo her Ketuva and what happens if she loses her Ketuva....
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 61: Mommy Wars and Whetting a Waiter’s Appetite

Dedicated in the memory of Dr. Dodi Tobin z"l. || A series of what amounts to recommendations by the sages...

Ketubot 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 61

ื‘ืจื™ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื™ืขื™ ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ืขื™ื ื ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ื›ื•ื•ืจื™ ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ื—ื™ื ื ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ื›ืจืคืกื ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ื–ื™ื•ืชื ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ื›ื•ืกื‘ืจืชื ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืฉืจื ื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ืืชืจื•ื’ื ื”ื•ื• ืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ืจื™ื—ื ื™ ื‘ืจืชื™ื” ื“ืฉื‘ื•ืจ ืžืœื›ื ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื” ืืžื” ืืชืจื•ื’ื ื•ื”ื•ื• ืžืกืงื™ ืœื” ืœืงืžื™ื” ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืจื™ืฉ ืจื™ื—ื ื™

healthy; one who eats eggs will have large-eyed children; one who eats fish will have graceful children; one who eats celery will have beautiful children; one who eats coriander [kusbarta] will have corpulent children; and one who eats etrogim will have sweet-smelling children. It is related with regard to the daughter of King Shapur of Persia, that her mother ate etrogim while pregnant with her and they used to place her in front of her father on top of all the spices, as she was so fragrant.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ื“ืง ืœืŸ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื”ื ื™ืง ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ืœื”ื ื™ืง ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฆืขืจื ื“ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื”ื ื™ืง ื•ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืฉืœื ืœื”ื ื™ืง ืžื”ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœืื• ืื•ืจื—ื” ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื” ื”ื™ื ืื•ืจื—ื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืœืื• ืื•ืจื—ื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ืื• ื‘ืชืจ ื“ื™ื“ื” ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

ยง Rav Huna said: Rav Huna bar แธคinnana tested us, by asking: If she says that she wants to nurse and he says that he does not want her to nurse but rather to give the child to a wet nurse, we accede to her desires, as she is the one suffering from engorgement of her breasts. However, if he says that he wants her to nurse and she says that she does not want to nurse, what is the halakha? He then narrowed the scope of the question: Anywhere that she is not accustomed, as the women of her family generally do not nurse their children but give them to wet nurses instead, we accede to her desires. However, if she is accustomed to nursing and he is not accustomed, i.e., the women of her family generally nurse their babies but the women in his family do not, what is the halakha: Do we follow his wishes to follow her family custom or do we follow her wishes to follow his family custom?

ื•ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื ืขื•ืœื” ืขืžื• ื•ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืจื“ืช ืขืžื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืงืจืื” ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ื™ืชื• ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืจื™ื“ืชื• ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืžื”ื›ื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื ื”ื™ืชื” ืื ื›ืœ ื—ื™ ืœื—ื™ื™ื ื ื™ืชื ื” ื•ืœื ืœืฆืขืจ ื ื™ืชื ื”

And we answered his question from this amoraic statement: When a woman marries a man, she ascends with him to his socioeconomic status, if it is higher than hers, but she does not descend with him if his status is lower. Consequently, if his family is not accustomed to nurse, she is not obligated to nurse either. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is derived from: โ€œShe is a manโ€™s wifeโ€ (Genesis 20:3). The Gemara explains: The word used here for โ€œwife [beโ€™ula]โ€ hints through similar spelling that she ascends in status with the ascension [aliya] of her husband but does not descend with the descent of her husband. Rabbi Elazar said: There is a hint to this principle from here: โ€œAs she was the mother of all livingโ€ (Genesis 3:20), which indicates that she was given to her husband for living with him, but was not given to suffer pain with him.

ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื ืฉืืจื ืขื‘ื“ื ื•ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืขื™ื™ืœื™ืช ืœืš ืื™ืชืชื ื‘ื—ืจื™ืงืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื ื˜ืจื—ื ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืงืžื™ ื“ื™ื“ืš ืžืืŸ ื˜ืจื—

ยง The mishna states that if she brought him one maidservant into the marriage with her, she does not need to grind wheat, bake, or wash clothes. The Gemara infers from this statement that she must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let the wife say to him: I brought you a woman in my place [baแธฅarikai] who can perform all the tasks I am supposed to do, and the wife should be completely exempt. The Gemara answers: This is not a valid argument because the husband can say to her: This maidservant toils for me and for herself like any other woman, but who will toil for you? It is necessary for the wife to do some work in order to cover some of her own expenses.

ืฉืชื™ื ืื™ื ื” ืžื‘ืฉืœืช ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžื ื™ืงื” ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื ืฉืืจื ืขื‘ื“ื ื•ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืขื™ื™ืœื™ืช ืœืš ืื™ืชืชื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื“ื˜ืจื—ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ื•ื—ื“ื ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ื•ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ืงืžื™ ืื•ืจื—ื™ ื•ืคืจื—ื™ ืžืืŸ ื˜ืจื—

The mishna further said that if she brought him two maidservants, she does not need to cook and does not need to nurse her child. The Gemara infers: She must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let the wife say to him: I brought you another woman who can toil for me and for herself, and one who can toil for you and for herself. Consequently, I do not need to do any work at all. The Gemara answers: This is also not a valid argument because he can say to her: Who is going to toil for the guests and wayfarers who will come because we are a large household? There are still other tasks that need to be performed.

ืฉืœืฉ ืื™ื ื” ืžืฆืขืช ื”ืžื˜ื” ื”ื ืฉืืจื ืขื‘ื“ื ื•ืชื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืขื™ื™ืœื™ืช ืœืš ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ืœืื•ืจื—ื™ ื•ืคืจื—ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ื ืคื™ืฉ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ืชื ื ืคื™ืฉ ืื•ืจื—ื™ ื•ืคืจื—ื™

The mishna further said that if she brought him three maidservants, she does not need to make his bed or make thread from wool. The Gemara infers: She must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let her say to him: I brought you another woman to toil for the guests and wayfarers, in addition to one to toil for herself and for me, and another to toil for herself and for you. Therefore, I do not need to do any work at all. The Gemara answers: This is also not a valid argument because he can say to her: When the members of the house increase, the number of guests and wayfarers also increases and therefore there is still more work to be done.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืืจื‘ืข ื ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืข ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื ืคื™ืฉื™ ืœื”ื• ืžืกื™ื™ืขืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™

The Gemara asks: If so, then even if she brought him four maidservants as well, she should also have to work, as there will be many more guests. But the mishna says that if she brought four maidservants she does not need to do anything. The Gemara answers: When there are four, since there are many of them, they assist one another and can complete all the necessary tasks.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืœื ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœื• ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœื ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืชื ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืฆืžืฆืžื” ืœื• ืžืฉืœื”

Rav แธคana, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani, said: This does not necessarily mean that she actually brought him maidservants. Rather, once she is able to bring him maidservants, i.e., once her dowry is sufficiently large to buy maidservants, then she is exempt from performing the tasks, although she did not actually bring him maidservants. The Sages taught: Whether she brought him actual maidservants or whether she reduced her own needs in order to release enough money to bring a maidservant to work, she is exempt from the tasks.

ืืจื‘ืข ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืงืชื“ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืงืชื“ืจื ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ื–ื’ืช ืœื• ื›ื•ืก ื•ืžืฆืขืช ืœื• ืืช ื”ืžื˜ื” ื•ืžืจื—ืฆืช ืœื• ืคื ื™ื• ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื•

ยง The mishna says that if she brought him four maidservants, she may sit in an chair and not do anything. Rav Yitzแธฅak bar แธคananya said that Rav Huna said: Although they said that she may sit in a chair and does not need to work, she should still pour his cup; and make his bed; and wash his face, hands, and feet, as these responsibilities are not household tasks that can be delegated to a maidservant. Rather, they are gestures of affection toward her husband.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื›ืœ ืžืœืื›ื•ืช ืฉื”ืืฉื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื ื“ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืžื–ื™ื’ืช ื”ื›ื•ืก ื•ื”ืฆืขืช ื”ืžื˜ื” ื•ื”ืจื—ืฆืช ืคื ื™ื• ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื•

Rav Yitzแธฅak bar แธคananya also said that Rav Huna said a similar halakha: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a menstruating woman may similarly perform for her husband, except for: Pouring his cup; and making his bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet. As explained above, these are acts of affection. If she is menstruating she should not perform them, so as not to lead to forbidden intercourse.

ื•ื”ืฆืขืช ื”ืžื˜ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื” ื•ืžื–ื™ื’ืช ื”ื›ื•ืก ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžื—ืœืคื ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ื™ืชื”ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื ื“ืฉืžืืœื ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืืคื•ืžื ื“ื›ื•ื‘ื ืจื‘ื ืื‘ื™ ืกื“ื™ื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืฉืจืฉื™ืคื

And With regard to the prohibition against making the husbandโ€™s bed, Rava said: We said this only if she made the bed in front of him, but if it was not in front of him, we have no problem with it. With regard to the prohibition against pouring his cup, the Gemara comments: Shmuelโ€™s wife would change her practice toward him during her menstruation period and pour with her left hand, since if she made some change in the manner of pouring, this would serve as a reminder of her status and mitigate the concern that it might lead to intimacy. Abayeโ€™s wife would place his cup on top of a barrel, Ravaโ€™s wife would place it on his pillow, and Rav Pappaโ€™s wife would place it on the bench to create a change.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ื›ืœ ืžืฉื”ื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ืฉืžืฉ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉืžืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืฉื ื” ื›ื•ืœื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ื‘ืชืงื•ืคืช ืชืžื•ื–

ยง Apropos statements by Rav Yitzแธฅak ben แธคananya, the Gemara cites other statements in his name. Rav Yitzแธฅak bar แธคananya said that Rav Huna said: All foods may be withheld from before the waiter, as one who is a waiter at the meal must wait until the guests have eaten from every food and only then may he eat, except for meat and wine, as these foods arouse the appetite more and the waiter would suffer if he could not eat them together with the other participants. Rav แธคisda said: This is referring only to fatty meat and aged wine. Rava said: It applies to fatty meat all year round but aged wine only during the season of Tammuz, in the summer. Due to the heat, the aroma of the wine is more pervasive at that time.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ืžื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืื™ื™ืชื• ืœื™ื” ืชื‘ืฉื™ืœื ื“ืืจื“ื™ ื•ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืื™ืกืชื›ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ืžื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืื™ื™ืชื• ืœื™ื” ื’ืจื’ืœื™ื“ื™ ื“ืœื™ืคืชื ื‘ื—ืœื ื•ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืื™ืกืชื›ื ื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชืžืจืชื ื“ื”ื ื•ื ื™ืชื ื›ืœืœื ื“ืžื™ืœืชื ื›ืœ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืจื™ื—ื ื•ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืงื™ื•ื”ื

Rav Anan bar Taแธฅalifa said: I was once standing before Mar Shmuel, and they brought him a cooked dish of mushrooms, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered due to the craving that I suffered. Rav Ashi said: I was once standing before Rav Kahana, and they brought him slices [gargelidei] of turnip in vinegar, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered. Rav Pappa said: Even a fragrant date should be offered to the waiter. The Gemara concludes: The principle of the matter is: One should offer some of everything that either has an aroma or that has a sharp taste to whomever is present when it is served, so that no one suffer by being unable to partake of these foods.

ืื‘ื•ื” ื‘ืจ ืื™ื”ื™ ื•ืžื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื”ื™ ื—ื“ ืกืคื™ ืžื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื ื•ืžื™ื ื ื•ื—ื“ ืกืคื™ ืžื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื ืžืจ ืžืฉืชืขื™ ืืœื™ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื•ืžืจ ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื™ ืืœื™ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื”

It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer.

ื”ื ื”ื• ืชืจืชื™ืŸ ื—ืกื™ื“ื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ื•ืจื‘ ืคื ื—ืก ื‘ื ื™ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืจ ืงื“ื™ื ืกืคื™ ื•ืžืจ ืžืื—ืจ ืกืคื™ ื“ืงื“ื™ื ืกืคื™ ืืœื™ื”ื• ืžืฉืชืขื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื“ืžืื—ืจ ืกืคื™ ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื™ ืืœื™ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื”

Similarly, the Gemara relates an incident with regard to two pious men, and some say they were Rav Mari and Rav Pineแธฅas, the sons of Rav แธคisda: One Sage would give the waiter something to eat before the meal, and the other Sage would give the waiter something to eat after the guests had eaten. With regard to the one who gave it to him earlier, Elijah spoke with him. But with regard to the one who gave it to him later, Elijah did not speak with him.

ืืžื™ืžืจ ื•ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื•ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื•ื• ืงื ื™ืชื‘ื™ ืืคื™ืชื—ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืื–ื’ื•ืจ ืžืœื›ื ื—ืœื™ืฃ ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ืื˜ื•ืจื ื’ื ื“ืžืœื›ื ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to this matter: Ameimar and Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting at the entrance to the house of King Izgur. The kingโ€™s chief butler was passing by with various foods. Rav Ashi saw Mar Zutraโ€™s

ื“ื—ื•ื•ืจ ืืคื™ื” ืฉืงืœ ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขืชื™ื” ืื ื— ืœื™ื” ื‘ืคื•ืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืคืกื“ืช ืœืกืขื•ื“ืชื ื“ืžืœื›ื ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืชื™ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžืืŸ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื›ื™ ืคืกื™ืœ ืœืžืื›ืœ ื“ืžืœื›ื ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื—ื–ืื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื“ืงื• ื•ืœื ืืฉื›ื—ื• ืฉืงืœ ืืฆื‘ืขืชื™ื” ืื ื— ืขืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื ืžื™ ื‘ื“ืงื™ืชื• ื‘ื“ืงื• ืืฉื›ื—ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืกืžื›ืช ืื ื™ืกื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื—ื–ืื™ ืจื•ื— ืฆืจืขืช ื“ืงื ืคืจื—ื” ืขื™ืœื•ื™ื”

face blanch because he craved the food, so he took some of the food with his finger and put it in Mar Zutraโ€™s mouth. The chief butler said to him: You have spoiled the kingโ€™s meal, as now he will not eat from it. The kingโ€™s soldiers who were there said to him: Why did you do this? He said to them: The one who makes such awful dishes is the one who actually spoiled the kingโ€™s food. They said to him: Why do you say this? He said to them: I saw something else, i.e., a leprous infection, in this meat. They checked and didnโ€™t find anything. He took his finger and placed it on the food and said to them: Did you check here? They then checked that spot and found the infection. The Sages said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that you relied on a miracle and assumed that leprosy would in fact be found there? He said to them: I saw a leprous spirit hovering over the food and realized that it had this defect.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืจื•ืžืื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ืžื™ื ืกื‘ืช ืœื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืœื ืื–ื™ืœ ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืจื™ืžื ื™ ืคืœื™ ื•ืื›ืœ ืงืžื” ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื“ืฆืขืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืœืขืชื™ื” ื•ืœื ื”ื‘ ืœื” ืขื“ ื“ื–ื’ ืœื” ืœืกื•ืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื™ ืžืกื™ื ื ืœืš ืžื™ื ืกื‘ืช ืœื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืื–ื™ืœ ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืจื™ืžื ื™ ืคืœื™ ื•ืื›ืœ ืงืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื“ืฆืขืจื™ ืœืš ืชื•ืฃ ืฉื“ืื™ ืชื•ืฃ ืฉื“ืื™ ืขื“ ื“ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื•ืฆื ื™ืจืงื ื•ืืชืกื™ืืช

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to a similar subject: A certain Roman said to a certain woman: Will you marry me? She said to him: No. In order to convince her, he went and brought pomegranates and peeled them and ate them in front of her and did not give her any of them. The aroma of the pomegranates caused her mouth to water, so she swallowed all of the saliva that caused her anguish, but he did not give her any until she became ill and bloated. Ultimately, he said to her: If I cure you, will you marry me? She said to him: Yes. He went and brought pomegranates, peeled them and ate them in front of her. He said to her: All of the saliva that causes you anguish, spit it out, spit it out. She did this until something like a green leaf came out of her, and then she was cured.

ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ื‘ืฆืžืจ ื‘ืฆืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืฉืชื™ื ืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื›ื•ืคื” ืœื ืœืขืžื•ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืœืขืžื•ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ื ื• ื•ืœื ืœื™ืชืŸ ืชื‘ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืื‘ืœ ื›ื•ืคื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืชื‘ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ืงืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืื™ื ื• ื›ื•ืคื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื‘ืคืฉืชืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืคืฉืชืŸ ืžืกืจื™ื— ืืช ื”ืคื” ื•ืžืฉืจื‘ื˜ ืืช ื”ืฉืคืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื›ื™ืชื ื ืจื•ืžืื”

ยง The mishna says that a wife must make thread from wool. The Gemara infers: She must make thread from wool, but she is not obligated to do so from flax. The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: A husband may not compel his wife to stand before his father and serve him, or to stand before his son and serve him, or to place straw before his animals, i.e., horses and donkeys, but he can compel her to place straw before his cattle, i.e., cows and bulls. Rabbi Yehuda said: He also cannot compel her to make thread from flax, because flax, while it is being spun, causes the mouth to smell foul and the lips to stiffen. The Gemara comments: This applies only to Roman flax, which causes the most damage.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœื• ืžืื” ืฉืคื—ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ

ยง The mishna continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he may compel her to make thread from wool, since idleness leads to licentiousness. Rav Malkiyyu said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ืฉืคื•ื“ ืฉืคื—ื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ืžื•ืช ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื•

Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rav Ika, said: The halakha discussed in tractate Beitza (28b) that a skewer that had been used for roasting meat but no longer has an olive-bulk of meat on it may be moved to a corner on a Festival; the halakha with regard to maidservants in the mishna here; and the halakha discussed in tractate Nidda (52a) that if a girl has two hair follicles in her pubic region, even if there are no hairs growing from them, she is considered to have reached majority and may perform แธฅalitza; these three halakhot were all stated by Rav Malkiyyu.

ื‘ืœื•ืจื™ืช ืืคืจ ืžืงืœื” ื•ื’ื‘ื™ื ื” ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื

However, the halakha discussed in tractate Avoda Zara (29a) that a Jew who cuts the hair of a pagan must stop at a distance of three fingerbreadths on every side before he reaches his forelock, as the pagans would grow their forelocks for idolatry and the Jew must not appear as if he were dressing the forelock for idolatrous purposes; and the halakha discussed in tractate Makkot (21a) that one may not place burnt ashes on a wound, as it looks like a tattoo; and the halakha discussed in tractate Avoda Zara (35b) that cheese made by a gentile is forbidden, because gentiles smooth the surface of their cheese with lard; these three halakhot were all stated by a different Sage named Rav Malkiya.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื ืฉืžืขืชืชื ืจื‘ ืžืœื›ื™ื• ื•ืกื™ืžื ืš ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืžืœื›ืชื ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืฉืคื—ื•ืช

Rav Pappa said: The halakhot mentioned above that relate to a mishna or a baraita were stated by Rav Malkiya, whereas amoraic statements of halakhot that are not related to a mishna or baraita were taught by Rav Malkiyyu. And your mnemonic to remember this is: The mishna is a queen [malketa], indicating that the comments that are referring to a mishna were made by Rav Malkiya, whose name is similar to the Aramaic term for queen. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Rabbi แธคanina, son of Rav Ika, and Rav Pappa? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha concerning maidservants. According to Rabbi แธคanina, this halakha was stated by Rav Malkiyyu, whereas Rav Pappa holds that it was taught by Rav Malkiya, since it is referring to a dispute in a mishna.

ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชื ื ืงืžื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืžื™ื˜ืœืœื ื‘ื’ื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืงื™ื˜ื ื™ื™ืชื ื•ื ื“ืจืฉื™ืจ

ยง The mishna says: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who vows that his wife is prohibited from doing any work must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract, since idleness leads to idiocy. The Gemara asks: This is essentially the same as the opinion of the first tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, who said that idleness leads to licentiousness. The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case when she plays with small dogs [guriyyata kitanyata] or with games [nadrashir] like chess. Since there is something occupying her she is not in danger of idiocy, but occupying oneself with diversions of this type may still lead to licentiousness.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื“ื™ืจ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืžืชืฉืžื™ืฉ ื”ืžื˜ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉืชื™ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืช ืื—ืช

MISHNA: With regard to one who vows that his wife may not derive benefit from marital relations with him, Beit Shammai say: He may maintain this situation for up to two weeks, but beyond that he must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. Beit Hillel say: He must divorce her if it continues beyond one week.

ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœืชืœืžื•ื“ ืชื•ืจื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื”ืคื•ืขืœื™ื ืฉื‘ืช ืื—ืช ื”ืขื•ื ื” ื”ืืžื•ืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื˜ื™ื™ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ืคื•ืขืœื™ื ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื—ืžืจื™ื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื’ืžืœื™ื ืื—ืช ืœืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื”ืกืคื ื™ื ืื—ืช ืœืฉืฉื” ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ

Apropos the husbandโ€™s obligation to his wife regarding marital relations, the Gemara mentions other aspects of this issue: Students may leave their homes and travel in order to learn Torah without their wivesโ€™ permission for up to thirty days, and laborers may leave their homes without their wivesโ€™ permission for up to one week. The set interval defining the frequency of a husbandโ€™s conjugal obligation to his wife stated in the Torah (see Exodus 21:10), unless the couple stipulated otherwise, varies according to the manโ€™s occupation and proximity to his home: Men of leisure, who do not work, must engage in marital relations every day, laborers must do so twice a week, donkey drivers once a week, camel drivers once every thirty days, and sailors once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื’ืžืจื™ ืžื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื ืงื‘ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื’ืžืจื™ ืžื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื–ื›ืจ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Beit Shammai say a husband may force abstinence on his wife by a vow for a period of up to two weeks without being compelled to divorce her? They derive this from the halakha that a woman who gave birth to a female is ritually impure and prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations with her husband for two weeks after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:5). From this they derive that a period of up to two weeks of abstinence is not deemed undue suffering. And from where do Beit Hillel derive their opinion? They derive it from a woman who gave birth to a male, as she is ritually impure for one week (see Leviticus 12:1โ€“4).

ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื ืžื™ ื ื’ืžืจื• ืžื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื ืงื‘ื” ืื™ ืžื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื’ืžืจื™ ืœื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืœื ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžื ื“ื” ื’ืžืจื™ ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And if this is so, Beit Hillel should also derive the halakha from a woman who gave birth to a female, since it is clear that the Torah does at times mandate a period of abstinence longer than one week. The Gemara answers: If they derived it from a woman who gave birth, this is indeed how they would have derived it. Rather, Beit Hillel derived it from the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from marital relations for seven days according to Torah law.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืžืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื ื’ืจื™ื ืœื” ืžืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื ื’ืจื™ื ืœื”

The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Beit Hillel, holds that one should derive a common matter from a common matter. Consequently, they derive the halakha of a permitted abstinence by a husband who vowed not to engage in marital relations with his wife from the halakha of a menstruating woman, since both are common cases. And one Sage, Beit Shammai, holds that one should derive a matter that one caused, such as a vow, from a different matter that he caused, i.e., childbirth, and not from menstruation, which was not caused by him at all.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืžืคืจืฉ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืกืชื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืœืืœืชืจ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืกืชื ื ืžื™ ื™ืžืชื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ืžืฆื ืคืชื— ืœื ื“ืจื•

Rav said: The dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai concerns one who specifies the given period of time in his vow, but if he vowed not to engage in marital relations with her for an unspecified period of time, all agree that he must divorce her immediately and give her the payment for her marriage contract. The reason is that since he did not indicate how long he intended to keep the vow, her suffering begins immediately. And Shmuel said: Even with regard to an unspecified vow he should also wait for the same period of time, as perhaps he will find an extenuation enabling the dissolution of his vow and then he will not need to divorce her.

ื”ื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื“ื™ืจ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ืžืœื™ื”ื ื•ืช ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื™ืขืžื™ื“ ืคืจื ืก ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ื™ืชืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืžืคืจืฉ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืกืชื ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ืœืืœืชืจ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืกืชื ื ืžื™ ื™ืžืชื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื™ืžืฆื ืคืชื— ืœื ื“ืจื•

The Gemara asks: Didnโ€™t they disagree about this issue once already? As we learned in a mishna (70a): In the case of one who vows that his wife is prohibited from benefiting from him or his property, if his vow will remain in effect for up to thirty days, he must appoint a trustee to support her. But if the vow will remain in effect for more than that amount of time, he must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. And Rav said there: They taught this only with regard to a case where he specifies a limited time during which the vow would be in effect, but if he vows without specification, he must divorce her immediately and give her the payment for her marriage contract. And Shmuel said: Even when he vowed without specification, he should also wait, as perhaps he will discover an extenuation enabling the dissolution of his vow.

ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ืคืจื ืก ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ืคืจื ืก ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื”ืš ืงืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ื ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืฆืจื™ื›ื

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to cite the dispute in both cases, as if it were stated only with regard to this case, of one who vows not to engage in marital relations, one might think that in this case Rav says he must divorce her because there is no possibility of appointing a trustee, but that with regard to that halakha, in the case when he vows not to provide sustenance, which can be provided by a trustee, one would say that Rav concedes to Shmuel that he should wait. Conversely, if the dispute was stated with regard to that case, where a trustee can be appointed, one might think that in that case Shmuel said to wait, but in this case of one who vows not to engage in marital relations, one might say that Shmuel concedes to Rav. Therefore, it is necessary to cite the dispute in both cases.

ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœืชืœืžื•ื“ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื›ืžื” ื›ืžื” ื“ื‘ืขื™

ยง The mishna said that students may leave their homes and travel for up to thirty days in order to learn Torah, without their wivesโ€™ permission. The Gemara asks: If they went with permission, for how long can they go? The Gemara expresses wonderment at this question: If they went with the permission of their wives, they can go for as long as they want. If the husband and wife agree on this, why is there any reason for the court to intervene?

Scroll To Top