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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 8, 2022 | 讬状讘 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 64

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z”l, on her 22nd yahrzeit. 鈥淢issing her warmth and her wisdom, today and every day. Yehi zichrah Baruch.鈥

Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, on her 18th yahrzeit. 鈥淟oving wife of Abraham Geffen z鈥漧, her life was devoted to family and Jewish causes. Her two sons made Aliyah to Israel and her daughter had a distinguished synagogue career as a hazan.

A woman who rebels against her husband does not get her ketuba money. But can she take her clothing that she brought into the marriage? Shmuel was quoted as saying for a betrothed woman we write a document of rebellion (if one refuses to go ahead with the marriage) but we do not write one for a woman who is supposed to marry the yabam. A contradiction is raised from a braita quoted on Ketubot 63 and the Gemara has several attempts at resolving it. What is the currency tarpik’in mentioned in the Mishna? The Mishna had two penalties for a rebellious spouse – 7 dinarim or tarpiki’in for the woman (deducted from her ketuba) or 3 dinarim or tarpiki’in (for the man – to pay to the wife) . Why is there a difference between the penalty for the man and the penalty for the woman? If the husband doesn’t live with the wife and hires or appoints someone to be in charge of giving her food, how much food does he need to give her? If the husband doesn’t give her a stipend of 100 dinar, then she doesn’t need to give him the money she makes beyond the basic salary. How much is considered a basic salary (amount of production expected from her)? A nursing woman is expected to produce less and gets provided with more food. These laws were all meant for poor people but wealthier people need to provide food for the woman according to her status. The Mishna gave the amount of two kav for a week (14 meals worth). However, this doesn’t seem to match either of the two opinions who disagree about the amount of food needed for an eruv techumim (which needs to be the amount for two meals). According to one opinion, a meal is 1/4 of a kav and according to the other, 1/9 of a kav. How can each of these opinions be explained to correspond to the Mishna?

诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗驻讻讬转讜 诇讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 讗转诪专 诇讗 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讛讻讬 转驻住讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 转驻住讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛

Because Rav Zevid is a great man, and due to his piety and humility he would not challenge the ruling, you twist the judgment against him? Didn鈥檛 Rav Kahana say: Rava raises a dilemma with regard to this issue and did not resolve it, so how did you rule that she may retain her worn clothes? The Gemara summarizes: Now that it was not stated and concluded this way or that way, if she seized an item of her possessions, we do not take it away from her, but if she did not seize it, we do not give it to her.

讜诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讛 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讗讙讬讟讗 讜讘讛谞讱 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 诪讘注诇

The Gemara adds another halakha with regard to a rebellious woman: And we delay her bill of divorce for twelve months of the year and do not give her a bill of divorce until then. And during those twelve months of the year she does not receive sustenance from her husband.

讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 拽讬住谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗讙专转 诪专讚 注诇 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗讙专转 诪专讚 注诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讞转 诇讬 讗专讜住讛 讜谞砖讜讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐

Rav Tuvi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: The court writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman who is rebelling against her husband. This letter is a court order to deduct value from the marriage contract. But it does not write a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her yavam who does not want to enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: It is the same to me if she is a betrothed woman or a married woman, and even if she is a menstruating woman, and even if she is ill, and even if she is a widow awaiting her yavam.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖转讘注 讛讜讗 讻讗谉 砖转讘注讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讘注 讛讜讗 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 转讘注讛 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the contradiction can be resolved in the following way: Here, where there is no distinction between a betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her yavam, it refers to a case where he asked to marry her and she is refusing; there, where there is a distinction, the case is where she asked to marry him and he is refusing. As Rav Ta岣lifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: If he asked, the court responds to his request and gives her the status of a rebellious woman, but if she asked, it does not respond to her request and does not add to her marriage contract.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖转讘注讛 讛讬讗 讛讗讬 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗讙专转 诪专讚 注诇 讗专讜住讛 诇讗专讜住讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 转谞讬 诇讗专讜住讛

The Gemara inquires: In what manner did you establish that which Shmuel said, that one writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman but not about a widow awaiting her yavam? If it is a situation where she asked to marry him and he did not want, then why phrase this: The court writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman, which indicates that the bill is written against her. It should have said instead: Write a letter of rebellion for a betrothed woman, meaning it is written on her behalf against her husband. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the text is imprecise. Teach the statement instead this way: For a betrothed woman.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讚转 讗专讜住讛 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讚转 讗诇讗 讘讘讗讛 诪讞诪转 讟注谞讛 讚讗诪专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讞讜讟专讗 诇讬讚讗 讜诪专讛 诇拽讘讜专讛

The Gemara asks: What is different about a widow awaiting her yavam, for whom a letter of rebellion is not written against her husband? Because we say to her: Go away; you are not commanded to procreate. Therefore, although she cannot get married, he cannot be compelled to perform an act that the Torah does not specifically command him to perform. The Gemara challenges this answer: If this is the reasoning, then in the case of a betrothed woman, too, let us say to her: Go away; you are not commanded. Rather, the case where a letter of rebellion is issued must be referring to a woman who comes with a claim, saying: I want a staff in my hand and a hoe for burial, i.e., I want children who will support me in my old age and attend to my burial after my death. This claim is valid, and therefore the court issues a letter of rebellion against the husband.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讘讘讗讛 诪讞诪转 讟注谞讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖转讘注 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讞诇讜抓 讜讻讗谉 诇讬讬讘诐 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讘注 诇讞诇讜抓 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 转讘注 诇讬讬讘诐 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: So too here, if she is a widow awaiting her yavam who comes with a claim, why shouldn鈥檛 the court listen to her? Rather, the Gemara retracts the explanation that she asked him to marry her. Instead, say that both this and that are discussing situations where he asks her and she rebels, and the question from the baraita on Shmuel鈥檚 statement is not difficult. Here, the baraita that said that the court writes a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her yavam, is referring to a case where the yavam asked her to perform 岣litza and she refused. There, Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the court does not write it, is referring to a case where he asked to consummate the levirate marriage, as Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If the yavam asked her to perform 岣litza and she refused, the court responds to him. If he asked to perform levirate marriage, the court does not respond to him.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讬讬讘诐 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讜谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诇讞诇讜抓 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讜谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讗讞专讬转讬

The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to the request to consummate the levirate marriage, that if a woman refuses the court does not write a letter of rebellion against her? Because we say to him: Go and marry another woman. He is not required to marry her specifically, if she does not agree to the marriage. Therefore, her refusal is not deemed rebellion. The Gemara challenges that answer: If so, with regard to a request to perform 岣litza also, let us say to him: Go and marry another woman. The difference between the two cases is still not clear.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讙讬讚讗 讘讬 诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讘讜 诇讬 讗讞专讬转讬

Rather, it must be that the reason is because he says: Since she is attached to me they will not give me another wife. As long as he has not performed 岣litza, he may have a problem finding another wife, as a potential wife will be concerned that he has a woman attached to him and may eventually enter levirate marriage with him. This is a valid claim, and therefore the court writes a letter of rebellion against her if she refuses 岣litza.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讙讬讚讗 讘讬 诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讘讜 诇讬 讗讞专讬转讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖转讘注 诇讬讬讘诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讻诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讗谉 讻诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: If so, here too, when she refuses a request to consummate the levirate marriage, he may say: Since she is attached to me they will not give me another. Why then doesn鈥檛 the court write a letter of rebellion in this case? Rather, one must say that this and that are both discussing a case where he asked to consummate the levirate marriage. And it is not difficult. Here, in Shmuel鈥檚 statement, where the court writes a letter of rebellion, it is in accordance with the first mishna. There, in the baraita, where it doesn鈥檛 write one, it is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.

讚转谞谉 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐 拽讜讚诪转 诇诪爪讜转 讞诇讬爪讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讛讬讜 诪转讻讜讜谞讬谉 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讜谞讬谉 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专讜 诪爪讜转 讞诇讬爪讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐

As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 13a): The mitzva of levirate marriage precedes the mitzva of 岣litza. This halakha originally applied when people would intend to perform the levirate marriage for the sake of the mitzva. At that time, it was customary to compel a woman to enter levirate marriage. If she refused, the court wrote a letter of rebellion about her. However, now that people do not intend to enter levirate marriage for the sake of the mitzva, but may have other intentions, the Sages said: The mitzva of 岣litza precedes the mitzva of levirate marriage. Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the court does not write a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her yavam is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.

注讚 诪转讬 讛讜讗 驻讜讞转 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟专驻注讬拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗住转讬专讗 讜讻诪讛 讗住转讬专讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讟专驻注讬拽讬谉 砖讛谉 转砖注 诪注讬谉 诪注讛 讜讞爪讬 诇讻诇 讬讜诐

搂 The mishna asks: Until when does he reduce her marriage contract? And in that context it states that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the sums involved are calculated in terapa鈥檌kin and not in dinars. The Gemara asks: What are terapa鈥檌kin? Rav Sheshet said: An asteira, a small coin. And how much is an asteira? A half of a dinar. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Three terapa鈥檌kin, which are nine ma鈥檃s, a ma鈥檃 and a half for each day, multiplied by six for the six days of the week.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讚讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚砖讘转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讚砖讘转 讗讬讛讬 讚诪讬驻讞转 拽讗 驻讞讬转 诇讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讻专 砖讘转 讗讬讛讜 讚讗讜住讜驻讬 拽讗 诪讜住驻讗

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: What is different when she is the one rebelling against him, that we give him compensation for Shabbat, as her marriage contract is reduced by seven dinars a week, which is one dinar per day including Shabbat, and what is different for her that we do not give her compensation for Shabbat but rather only for six days? The Gemara explains: When it is she who is fined and her marriage contract is reduced, it does not appear to be Shabbat wages, money paid for services rendered on Shabbat, which is prohibited. Whereas when it is he who is fined and compelled to add additional money every day to her marriage contract,

诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讻专 砖讘转

it does appear to be Shabbat wages. Consequently, the Sages decreed that he should not give her money for Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讛 讘讬谉 诪讜专讚 诇诪讜专讚转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖讜拽 砖诇 讝讜谞讜转 诪讬 砖讜讻专 讗转 诪讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讝讛 讬爪专讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讝讜 讬爪专讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

On the same issue, Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: What is the reason for the difference in halakha between a rebellious man and a rebellious woman? According to all opinions, a rebellious wife鈥檚 fine is greater than that of a rebellious husband. He said to him: Go and learn from the market of prostitutes. Who hires whose services? Clearly, a man suffers more from lack of sexual intercourse, and therefore the penalty for a rebellious wife is greater. Alternatively, when he desires sexual relations, his inclination is noticeable on the outside, and therefore he feels shame as well as pain. But for her, her inclination is on the inside, and is not obvious.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖专讛 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 讬讚讬 砖诇讬砖 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诇讛 诪砖谞讬 拽讘讬谉 讞讟讬谉 讗讜 诪讗专讘注讛 拽讘讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 砖注讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讛讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇讗讚讜诐 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讞爪讬 拽讘 拽讬讟谞讬转 讜讞爪讬 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 讜拽讘 讙专讜讙专讜转 讗讜 诪谞讛 讚讘讬诇讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 驻讜住拽 诇注讜诪转谉 驻讬专讜转 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

MISHNA: If someone feeds his wife by means of a third party serving as a trustee, while the husband himself is not living with her for some reason, he may not give her less than two kav of wheat or four kav of barley a week for her sustenance. Rabbi Yosei said: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her barley. And he must give her half a kav of legumes, and half a log of oil, and a kav of dried figs or the weight of a maneh of fig cakes. And if he does not have these fruits, he must apportion for her a corresponding amount of fruit from elsewhere.

讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪讟讛 诪驻抓 讜诪讞爪诇转 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻驻讛 诇专讗砖讛 讜讞讙讜专 诇诪转谞讬讛 讜诪谞注诇讬诐 诪诪讜注讚 诇诪讜注讚 讜讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 诪砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 讞讚砖讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 砖讞拽讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗诇讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛讬讗 诪转讻住讛 讘讘诇讗讜转讬讛谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讛砖讞拽讬诐 砖诇讛

And he must give her a bed, a soft mat, and a hard mat. And he must give her a cap for her head, and a belt for her waist, and new shoes from Festival to Festival, i.e., he must buy her new shoes each Festival. And he must purchase garments for her with a value of fifty dinars from year to year. The mishna comments: And he may not give her new clothes, which tend to be thick and warm, in the summer, nor worn garments in the rainy season, as these are too thin and she will be cold. Rather, he should give her clothes at a value of fifty dinars in the rainy season, and she covers herself with these same worn garments in the summer as well. And the leftover, worn clothes belong to her.

谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪注讛 讻住祝 诇爪讜专讻讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 注诪讜 诪诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 诇诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪注讛 讻住祝 诇爪讜专讻讛 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 砖诇讛

In addition to the above, he must give her another silver ma鈥檃 coin for the rest of her needs. And she eats with him from Shabbat evening to Shabbat evening. Although he may provide for her sustenance via a third party throughout the week, on Shabbat evening she has the right to eat together with him. And if he does not give her a silver ma鈥檃 coin for her needs, her earnings belong to her.

讜诪讛 讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 诇讜 诪砖拽诇 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 砖转讬 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛谉 注砖专 住诇注讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讜 诪砖拽诇 注砖专 住诇注讬诐 注专讘 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 住诇注讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪谞讬拽讛 驻讜讞转讬谉 诇讛 诪诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜诪讜住讬驻讬谉 诇讛 注诇 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘诪讻讜讘讚 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜

And what is the fixed amount that she must earn for him? She must spin wool in the weight of five sela of threads of the warp in Judea, which are equivalent to ten sela according to the measurements of the Galilee, or the weight of ten sela of the threads of the woof, which are easier to prepare, in Judea, which are equivalent to twenty sela according to the measurements used in the Galilee. And if she is nursing at the time, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. In what case is this statement, i.e., all these amounts and measurements, said? With regard to the poorest of Jews, i.e., these are the minimum requirements. However, in the case of a financially prominent man, all the amounts are increased according to his prominence.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诪讝讜谞讜 诇讞讜诇 讜诇讗 诇砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇砖讘转 讜诇讗 诇讞讜诇 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪转讻讜讜谞讬谉 诇讛拽诇

GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka and it is not Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Eiruvin 82b): What is the measure for a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv]? It consists of a quantity of food sufficient for two meals for each and every one of those included in the eiruv. The tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the definition of these two meals: It is referring to one鈥檚 food that he eats on a weekday and not on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is referring to the amount he eats on Shabbat and not on a weekday. And both this Sage, Rabbi Meir, and that Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, intend to be lenient, as Rabbi Meir maintains that people eat more food on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Yehuda believes that they consume more on a weekday.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讻讻专 讛诇拽讜讞 讘驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诪讗专讘注 住讗讬谉 诇住诇注 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 讬讚讜转 诇讻讻专 诪砖诇砖 讻讻专讜转 诇拽讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: Food for two meals is the size of a loaf bought with a pundeyon, which is one forty-eighth of a sela, when four se鈥檃 of wheat are sold for a sela. According to this calculation, a pundeyon can purchase one-twelfth of a se鈥檃 of wheat, which is equivalent to half of a kav, as there are six kav in a se鈥檃. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, one quarter of a kav is sufficient for a single meal. Rabbi Shimon says: Food for two meals is two of three parts of a loaf, when three loaves are prepared from a kav of wheat. According to Rabbi Shimon, therefore, one-ninth of a kav of wheat is sufficient for a meal.

讞爪讬讛 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讜讞爪讬 讞爪讬讛 诇驻住讜诇 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讜讞爪讬 讞爪讬 讞爪讬讛 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

Having discussed the various opinions with regard to the size of a loaf of bread sufficient for a meal, the mishna states that half of this loaf is the amount called a half [peras], a measure relevant for the halakhot of a leprous house. If one enters a house afflicted with leprosy and remains there long enough to eat this amount of food, the clothes he is wearing become ritually impure. And half of its half, one quarter of a loaf this size, is the amount of ritually impure food that renders the body unfit. In other words, impure food of this amount imparts ritual impurity to the body of the eater and disqualifies him by rabbinic law from eating teruma. And half of one half of its half, one-eighth of this loaf, is the minimum measure of food that is susceptible to ritual impurity as food.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转诪谞讬 住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉

After the citing the mishna, the Gemara returns to its question: Who is the author of the mishna here, which says a husband must provide two kav of wheat per week for his wife鈥檚 sustenance? If it is Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who maintains that one quarter of a kav is sufficient for a single meal, there are only eight meals in two kav, and the wife requires at least fourteen meals for a week, as it was customary to eat two meals each day. And if it is Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one-ninth of a kav is sufficient for a meal, two kav are enough for eighteen meals, and therefore the mishna requires more than she actually needs.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讜讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讗 诪讛谉 砖诇讬砖 诇讞谞讜讜谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讬转讬 转讬诇转讗 砖讚讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讻转讬 转专转讬 住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讗讜讻诇转 注诪讜 诇讬诇讬 砖讘转

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, and this is as Rav 岣sda said in explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka鈥檚 opinion: Deduct one-third for the grocer鈥檚 markup, as he takes one-third as profit. This adds one half to the total cost. Here, too, bring one-third and add it to the total amount of meals that can be provided by two kav of wheat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Still, after adjusting the calculation by adding an additional half, a measurement known by the term: Outside third, to the amount of meals that can be eaten from two kav of wheat, they are equal to twelve meals. This is still not sufficient, as the wife requires fourteen. The Gemara answers: She eats with him on Shabbat evening. Consequently, this meal is not included in the amount that must be provided through the third party.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 转砖诪讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜注讜讚 转诇讬住专 讛讜讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讞爪讛 诇讞谞讜讜谞讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗转讬讗 驻诇讙讗 讜砖讚讬 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that when the mishna is referring to eating, it means literal eating. However, according to the one who says that this eating on Shabbat evening is a euphemism, and it is actually referring to conjugal relations, what can be said? And furthermore, even if the meal on Shabbat evening is omitted, they are still thirteen meals that she requires but she has enough for only twelve. Rather, this is as Rav 岣sda said, with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka鈥檚 opinion: Deduct one-half for the grocer鈥檚 markup. So too here, bring a half and add it to the total amount, which means she has enough for sixteen meals, not eight.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚讬讛讘讬 爪讬讘讬 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬 爪讬讘讬

The Gemara asks: This is difficult with regard to one statement of Rav 岣sda, which seemingly contradicts the other statement of Rav 岣sda. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement, that the grocer鈥檚 markup adds one-third to the price, is referring to a place where they also give money as a separate payment for the wood required to bake bread. That statement, that the grocer鈥檚 markup adds half, is referring to a place where they do not give money for wood, and therefore the markup must be higher to cover those costs.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讬转住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 讚讗诪专 讗专讘注 住注讜讚讜转 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖讘转

After reconciling the apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rav 岣sda, the Gemara returns to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. If so, according to the above calculation, there are sixteen meals, which is more than a woman requires in a week. The Gemara suggests: In that case, who is the author of the mishna? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣dka, who said that a person is obligated to eat four meals on Shabbat? Since two meals are eaten on an ordinary weekday, this results in a total of sixteen meals a week.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚诇 讞讚讗 诇讗专讞讬 讜驻专讞讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that one is obligated to eat only three meals on Shabbat, as you should remove one meal for guests and wayfarers. In other words, the husband cannot give his wife the absolute minimum amount she requires for herself and no more. He must give her enough to provide for the occasional visitor. Consequently, the total sum is somewhat more than was originally assumed.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇 转诇转 诇讗专讞讬 讜驻专讞讬 诇专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 讚诇 转专转讬 诇讗专讞讬 讜驻专讞讬

The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this answer, you can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that two kav is sufficient for eighteen meals. This can be explained either by saying that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one eats three meals on Shabbat, if you remove three meals for guests and wayfarers, or that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣dka, that four meals are eaten on Shabbat, in which case you must remove two meals for guests and wayfarers. In this manner, the mishna can be reconciled with all opinions.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 驻住拽 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诇讗 讘讗讚讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讻诇讬谉 砖注讜专讬诐 讘讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 驻住拽 砖注讜专讬诐 讻驻诇讬诐 讘讞讟讬谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讛讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇讗讚讜诐 诪驻谞讬 砖砖注讜专讬谉 讗讚讜诪讬讜转 专注讜转 讛谉

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei said: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her barley. The Gemara asks: But does this indicate that it is only in Edom that they eat barley, whereas in the rest of the world they do not eat barley? This cannot be the case, as barley was eaten by the poor everywhere. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Yosei is saying: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her a double amount of barley to that of wheat, since Edomite barley is bad, whereas elsewhere the barley is of a higher quality, and therefore the difference between barley and wheat is less marked.

讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讞爪讬 拽讘 拽讬讟谞讬转 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讬谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

搂 The mishna further taught: And he must give her half a kav of legumes as well as oil and fruit. The Gemara comments: And yet wine is not taught in the mishna. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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: 63-69 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn about the 鈥渞ebellious wife鈥, why she is called rebellious and what are the...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 64: A Woman’s Provisions

More on wives deemed "rebellious." An assortment of rabbis needed to adjudicate a case of a moredet and whether she...

Ketubot 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 64

诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗驻讻讬转讜 诇讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 讗转诪专 诇讗 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 讛讻讬 转驻住讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 转驻住讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛

Because Rav Zevid is a great man, and due to his piety and humility he would not challenge the ruling, you twist the judgment against him? Didn鈥檛 Rav Kahana say: Rava raises a dilemma with regard to this issue and did not resolve it, so how did you rule that she may retain her worn clothes? The Gemara summarizes: Now that it was not stated and concluded this way or that way, if she seized an item of her possessions, we do not take it away from her, but if she did not seize it, we do not give it to her.

讜诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讛 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讗讙讬讟讗 讜讘讛谞讱 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 诇讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 诪讘注诇

The Gemara adds another halakha with regard to a rebellious woman: And we delay her bill of divorce for twelve months of the year and do not give her a bill of divorce until then. And during those twelve months of the year she does not receive sustenance from her husband.

讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 拽讬住谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗讙专转 诪专讚 注诇 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗讙专转 诪专讚 注诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讞转 诇讬 讗专讜住讛 讜谞砖讜讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐

Rav Tuvi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: The court writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman who is rebelling against her husband. This letter is a court order to deduct value from the marriage contract. But it does not write a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her yavam who does not want to enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: It is the same to me if she is a betrothed woman or a married woman, and even if she is a menstruating woman, and even if she is ill, and even if she is a widow awaiting her yavam.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖转讘注 讛讜讗 讻讗谉 砖转讘注讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讘注 讛讜讗 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 转讘注讛 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the contradiction can be resolved in the following way: Here, where there is no distinction between a betrothed woman and a widow awaiting her yavam, it refers to a case where he asked to marry her and she is refusing; there, where there is a distinction, the case is where she asked to marry him and he is refusing. As Rav Ta岣lifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: If he asked, the court responds to his request and gives her the status of a rebellious woman, but if she asked, it does not respond to her request and does not add to her marriage contract.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖转讘注讛 讛讬讗 讛讗讬 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗讙专转 诪专讚 注诇 讗专讜住讛 诇讗专讜住讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 转谞讬 诇讗专讜住讛

The Gemara inquires: In what manner did you establish that which Shmuel said, that one writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman but not about a widow awaiting her yavam? If it is a situation where she asked to marry him and he did not want, then why phrase this: The court writes a letter of rebellion about a betrothed woman, which indicates that the bill is written against her. It should have said instead: Write a letter of rebellion for a betrothed woman, meaning it is written on her behalf against her husband. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the text is imprecise. Teach the statement instead this way: For a betrothed woman.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讚转 讗专讜住讛 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 诪驻拽讚转 讗诇讗 讘讘讗讛 诪讞诪转 讟注谞讛 讚讗诪专讛 讘注讬谞讗 讞讜讟专讗 诇讬讚讗 讜诪专讛 诇拽讘讜专讛

The Gemara asks: What is different about a widow awaiting her yavam, for whom a letter of rebellion is not written against her husband? Because we say to her: Go away; you are not commanded to procreate. Therefore, although she cannot get married, he cannot be compelled to perform an act that the Torah does not specifically command him to perform. The Gemara challenges this answer: If this is the reasoning, then in the case of a betrothed woman, too, let us say to her: Go away; you are not commanded. Rather, the case where a letter of rebellion is issued must be referring to a woman who comes with a claim, saying: I want a staff in my hand and a hoe for burial, i.e., I want children who will support me in my old age and attend to my burial after my death. This claim is valid, and therefore the court issues a letter of rebellion against the husband.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讘讘讗讛 诪讞诪转 讟注谞讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖转讘注 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讞诇讜抓 讜讻讗谉 诇讬讬讘诐 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讘注 诇讞诇讜抓 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜 转讘注 诇讬讬讘诐 讗讬谉 谞讝拽拽讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: So too here, if she is a widow awaiting her yavam who comes with a claim, why shouldn鈥檛 the court listen to her? Rather, the Gemara retracts the explanation that she asked him to marry her. Instead, say that both this and that are discussing situations where he asks her and she rebels, and the question from the baraita on Shmuel鈥檚 statement is not difficult. Here, the baraita that said that the court writes a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her yavam, is referring to a case where the yavam asked her to perform 岣litza and she refused. There, Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the court does not write it, is referring to a case where he asked to consummate the levirate marriage, as Rabbi Pedat said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If the yavam asked her to perform 岣litza and she refused, the court responds to him. If he asked to perform levirate marriage, the court does not respond to him.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讬讬讘诐 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讜谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诇讞诇讜抓 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讜谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讗讞专讬转讬

The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to the request to consummate the levirate marriage, that if a woman refuses the court does not write a letter of rebellion against her? Because we say to him: Go and marry another woman. He is not required to marry her specifically, if she does not agree to the marriage. Therefore, her refusal is not deemed rebellion. The Gemara challenges that answer: If so, with regard to a request to perform 岣litza also, let us say to him: Go and marry another woman. The difference between the two cases is still not clear.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讙讬讚讗 讘讬 诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讘讜 诇讬 讗讞专讬转讬

Rather, it must be that the reason is because he says: Since she is attached to me they will not give me another wife. As long as he has not performed 岣litza, he may have a problem finding another wife, as a potential wife will be concerned that he has a woman attached to him and may eventually enter levirate marriage with him. This is a valid claim, and therefore the court writes a letter of rebellion against her if she refuses 岣litza.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讙讬讚讗 讘讬 诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讘讜 诇讬 讗讞专讬转讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖转讘注 诇讬讬讘诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讻诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讗谉 讻诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: If so, here too, when she refuses a request to consummate the levirate marriage, he may say: Since she is attached to me they will not give me another. Why then doesn鈥檛 the court write a letter of rebellion in this case? Rather, one must say that this and that are both discussing a case where he asked to consummate the levirate marriage. And it is not difficult. Here, in Shmuel鈥檚 statement, where the court writes a letter of rebellion, it is in accordance with the first mishna. There, in the baraita, where it doesn鈥檛 write one, it is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.

讚转谞谉 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐 拽讜讚诪转 诇诪爪讜转 讞诇讬爪讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讛讬讜 诪转讻讜讜谞讬谉 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讜谞讬谉 诇砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专讜 诪爪讜转 讞诇讬爪讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐

As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 13a): The mitzva of levirate marriage precedes the mitzva of 岣litza. This halakha originally applied when people would intend to perform the levirate marriage for the sake of the mitzva. At that time, it was customary to compel a woman to enter levirate marriage. If she refused, the court wrote a letter of rebellion about her. However, now that people do not intend to enter levirate marriage for the sake of the mitzva, but may have other intentions, the Sages said: The mitzva of 岣litza precedes the mitzva of levirate marriage. Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the court does not write a letter of rebellion about a widow awaiting her yavam is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.

注讚 诪转讬 讛讜讗 驻讜讞转 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟专驻注讬拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗住转讬专讗 讜讻诪讛 讗住转讬专讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讝讜讝讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讟专驻注讬拽讬谉 砖讛谉 转砖注 诪注讬谉 诪注讛 讜讞爪讬 诇讻诇 讬讜诐

搂 The mishna asks: Until when does he reduce her marriage contract? And in that context it states that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the sums involved are calculated in terapa鈥檌kin and not in dinars. The Gemara asks: What are terapa鈥檌kin? Rav Sheshet said: An asteira, a small coin. And how much is an asteira? A half of a dinar. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Three terapa鈥檌kin, which are nine ma鈥檃s, a ma鈥檃 and a half for each day, multiplied by six for the six days of the week.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讚讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚砖讘转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讚砖讘转 讗讬讛讬 讚诪讬驻讞转 拽讗 驻讞讬转 诇讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讻专 砖讘转 讗讬讛讜 讚讗讜住讜驻讬 拽讗 诪讜住驻讗

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: What is different when she is the one rebelling against him, that we give him compensation for Shabbat, as her marriage contract is reduced by seven dinars a week, which is one dinar per day including Shabbat, and what is different for her that we do not give her compensation for Shabbat but rather only for six days? The Gemara explains: When it is she who is fined and her marriage contract is reduced, it does not appear to be Shabbat wages, money paid for services rendered on Shabbat, which is prohibited. Whereas when it is he who is fined and compelled to add additional money every day to her marriage contract,

诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讻专 砖讘转

it does appear to be Shabbat wages. Consequently, the Sages decreed that he should not give her money for Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讛 讘讬谉 诪讜专讚 诇诪讜专讚转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖讜拽 砖诇 讝讜谞讜转 诪讬 砖讜讻专 讗转 诪讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讝讛 讬爪专讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讝讜 讬爪专讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

On the same issue, Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: What is the reason for the difference in halakha between a rebellious man and a rebellious woman? According to all opinions, a rebellious wife鈥檚 fine is greater than that of a rebellious husband. He said to him: Go and learn from the market of prostitutes. Who hires whose services? Clearly, a man suffers more from lack of sexual intercourse, and therefore the penalty for a rebellious wife is greater. Alternatively, when he desires sexual relations, his inclination is noticeable on the outside, and therefore he feels shame as well as pain. But for her, her inclination is on the inside, and is not obvious.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖专讛 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 讬讚讬 砖诇讬砖 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诇讛 诪砖谞讬 拽讘讬谉 讞讟讬谉 讗讜 诪讗专讘注讛 拽讘讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 驻住拽 诇讛 砖注讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讛讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇讗讚讜诐 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讞爪讬 拽讘 拽讬讟谞讬转 讜讞爪讬 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 讜拽讘 讙专讜讙专讜转 讗讜 诪谞讛 讚讘讬诇讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 驻讜住拽 诇注讜诪转谉 驻讬专讜转 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

MISHNA: If someone feeds his wife by means of a third party serving as a trustee, while the husband himself is not living with her for some reason, he may not give her less than two kav of wheat or four kav of barley a week for her sustenance. Rabbi Yosei said: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her barley. And he must give her half a kav of legumes, and half a log of oil, and a kav of dried figs or the weight of a maneh of fig cakes. And if he does not have these fruits, he must apportion for her a corresponding amount of fruit from elsewhere.

讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪讟讛 诪驻抓 讜诪讞爪诇转 讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻驻讛 诇专讗砖讛 讜讞讙讜专 诇诪转谞讬讛 讜诪谞注诇讬诐 诪诪讜注讚 诇诪讜注讚 讜讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 诪砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 讞讚砖讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 砖讞拽讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗诇讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讝讜讝 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛讬讗 诪转讻住讛 讘讘诇讗讜转讬讛谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讛砖讞拽讬诐 砖诇讛

And he must give her a bed, a soft mat, and a hard mat. And he must give her a cap for her head, and a belt for her waist, and new shoes from Festival to Festival, i.e., he must buy her new shoes each Festival. And he must purchase garments for her with a value of fifty dinars from year to year. The mishna comments: And he may not give her new clothes, which tend to be thick and warm, in the summer, nor worn garments in the rainy season, as these are too thin and she will be cold. Rather, he should give her clothes at a value of fifty dinars in the rainy season, and she covers herself with these same worn garments in the summer as well. And the leftover, worn clothes belong to her.

谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪注讛 讻住祝 诇爪讜专讻讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 注诪讜 诪诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 诇诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讛 诪注讛 讻住祝 诇爪讜专讻讛 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 砖诇讛

In addition to the above, he must give her another silver ma鈥檃 coin for the rest of her needs. And she eats with him from Shabbat evening to Shabbat evening. Although he may provide for her sustenance via a third party throughout the week, on Shabbat evening she has the right to eat together with him. And if he does not give her a silver ma鈥檃 coin for her needs, her earnings belong to her.

讜诪讛 讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 诇讜 诪砖拽诇 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 砖转讬 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛谉 注砖专 住诇注讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讜 诪砖拽诇 注砖专 住诇注讬诐 注专讘 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 住诇注讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪谞讬拽讛 驻讜讞转讬谉 诇讛 诪诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜诪讜住讬驻讬谉 诇讛 注诇 诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘诪讻讜讘讚 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜

And what is the fixed amount that she must earn for him? She must spin wool in the weight of five sela of threads of the warp in Judea, which are equivalent to ten sela according to the measurements of the Galilee, or the weight of ten sela of the threads of the woof, which are easier to prepare, in Judea, which are equivalent to twenty sela according to the measurements used in the Galilee. And if she is nursing at the time, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. In what case is this statement, i.e., all these amounts and measurements, said? With regard to the poorest of Jews, i.e., these are the minimum requirements. However, in the case of a financially prominent man, all the amounts are increased according to his prominence.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诪讝讜谞讜 诇讞讜诇 讜诇讗 诇砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇砖讘转 讜诇讗 诇讞讜诇 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪转讻讜讜谞讬谉 诇讛拽诇

GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka and it is not Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Eiruvin 82b): What is the measure for a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv]? It consists of a quantity of food sufficient for two meals for each and every one of those included in the eiruv. The tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the definition of these two meals: It is referring to one鈥檚 food that he eats on a weekday and not on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is referring to the amount he eats on Shabbat and not on a weekday. And both this Sage, Rabbi Meir, and that Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, intend to be lenient, as Rabbi Meir maintains that people eat more food on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Yehuda believes that they consume more on a weekday.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讻讻专 讛诇拽讜讞 讘驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诪讗专讘注 住讗讬谉 诇住诇注 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 讬讚讜转 诇讻讻专 诪砖诇砖 讻讻专讜转 诇拽讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: Food for two meals is the size of a loaf bought with a pundeyon, which is one forty-eighth of a sela, when four se鈥檃 of wheat are sold for a sela. According to this calculation, a pundeyon can purchase one-twelfth of a se鈥檃 of wheat, which is equivalent to half of a kav, as there are six kav in a se鈥檃. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, one quarter of a kav is sufficient for a single meal. Rabbi Shimon says: Food for two meals is two of three parts of a loaf, when three loaves are prepared from a kav of wheat. According to Rabbi Shimon, therefore, one-ninth of a kav of wheat is sufficient for a meal.

讞爪讬讛 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讜讞爪讬 讞爪讬讛 诇驻住讜诇 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讜讞爪讬 讞爪讬 讞爪讬讛 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

Having discussed the various opinions with regard to the size of a loaf of bread sufficient for a meal, the mishna states that half of this loaf is the amount called a half [peras], a measure relevant for the halakhot of a leprous house. If one enters a house afflicted with leprosy and remains there long enough to eat this amount of food, the clothes he is wearing become ritually impure. And half of its half, one quarter of a loaf this size, is the amount of ritually impure food that renders the body unfit. In other words, impure food of this amount imparts ritual impurity to the body of the eater and disqualifies him by rabbinic law from eating teruma. And half of one half of its half, one-eighth of this loaf, is the minimum measure of food that is susceptible to ritual impurity as food.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转诪谞讬 住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉

After the citing the mishna, the Gemara returns to its question: Who is the author of the mishna here, which says a husband must provide two kav of wheat per week for his wife鈥檚 sustenance? If it is Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who maintains that one quarter of a kav is sufficient for a single meal, there are only eight meals in two kav, and the wife requires at least fourteen meals for a week, as it was customary to eat two meals each day. And if it is Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one-ninth of a kav is sufficient for a meal, two kav are enough for eighteen meals, and therefore the mishna requires more than she actually needs.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讜讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讗 诪讛谉 砖诇讬砖 诇讞谞讜讜谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讬转讬 转讬诇转讗 砖讚讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗讻转讬 转专转讬 住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讗讜讻诇转 注诪讜 诇讬诇讬 砖讘转

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, and this is as Rav 岣sda said in explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka鈥檚 opinion: Deduct one-third for the grocer鈥檚 markup, as he takes one-third as profit. This adds one half to the total cost. Here, too, bring one-third and add it to the total amount of meals that can be provided by two kav of wheat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Still, after adjusting the calculation by adding an additional half, a measurement known by the term: Outside third, to the amount of meals that can be eaten from two kav of wheat, they are equal to twelve meals. This is still not sufficient, as the wife requires fourteen. The Gemara answers: She eats with him on Shabbat evening. Consequently, this meal is not included in the amount that must be provided through the third party.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讻讬诇讛 转砖诪讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜注讜讚 转诇讬住专 讛讜讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讞爪讛 诇讞谞讜讜谞讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗转讬讗 驻诇讙讗 讜砖讚讬 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that when the mishna is referring to eating, it means literal eating. However, according to the one who says that this eating on Shabbat evening is a euphemism, and it is actually referring to conjugal relations, what can be said? And furthermore, even if the meal on Shabbat evening is omitted, they are still thirteen meals that she requires but she has enough for only twelve. Rather, this is as Rav 岣sda said, with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka鈥檚 opinion: Deduct one-half for the grocer鈥檚 markup. So too here, bring a half and add it to the total amount, which means she has enough for sixteen meals, not eight.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚讬讛讘讬 爪讬讘讬 讛讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬 爪讬讘讬

The Gemara asks: This is difficult with regard to one statement of Rav 岣sda, which seemingly contradicts the other statement of Rav 岣sda. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement, that the grocer鈥檚 markup adds one-third to the price, is referring to a place where they also give money as a separate payment for the wood required to bake bread. That statement, that the grocer鈥檚 markup adds half, is referring to a place where they do not give money for wood, and therefore the markup must be higher to cover those costs.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讬转住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 讚讗诪专 讗专讘注 住注讜讚讜转 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖讘转

After reconciling the apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rav 岣sda, the Gemara returns to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. If so, according to the above calculation, there are sixteen meals, which is more than a woman requires in a week. The Gemara suggests: In that case, who is the author of the mishna? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣dka, who said that a person is obligated to eat four meals on Shabbat? Since two meals are eaten on an ordinary weekday, this results in a total of sixteen meals a week.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚诇 讞讚讗 诇讗专讞讬 讜驻专讞讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that one is obligated to eat only three meals on Shabbat, as you should remove one meal for guests and wayfarers. In other words, the husband cannot give his wife the absolute minimum amount she requires for herself and no more. He must give her enough to provide for the occasional visitor. Consequently, the total sum is somewhat more than was originally assumed.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇 转诇转 诇讗专讞讬 讜驻专讞讬 诇专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 讚诇 转专转讬 诇讗专讞讬 讜驻专讞讬

The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this answer, you can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that two kav is sufficient for eighteen meals. This can be explained either by saying that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one eats three meals on Shabbat, if you remove three meals for guests and wayfarers, or that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣dka, that four meals are eaten on Shabbat, in which case you must remove two meals for guests and wayfarers. In this manner, the mishna can be reconciled with all opinions.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 驻住拽 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诇讗 讘讗讚讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讻诇讬谉 砖注讜专讬诐 讘讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 驻住拽 砖注讜专讬诐 讻驻诇讬诐 讘讞讟讬谉 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讛讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇讗讚讜诐 诪驻谞讬 砖砖注讜专讬谉 讗讚讜诪讬讜转 专注讜转 讛谉

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei said: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her barley. The Gemara asks: But does this indicate that it is only in Edom that they eat barley, whereas in the rest of the world they do not eat barley? This cannot be the case, as barley was eaten by the poor everywhere. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Yosei is saying: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her a double amount of barley to that of wheat, since Edomite barley is bad, whereas elsewhere the barley is of a higher quality, and therefore the difference between barley and wheat is less marked.

讜谞讜转谉 诇讛 讞爪讬 拽讘 拽讬讟谞讬转 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讬谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

搂 The mishna further taught: And he must give her half a kav of legumes as well as oil and fruit. The Gemara comments: And yet wine is not taught in the mishna. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said:

Scroll To Top