Ketubot 64
מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב זְבִיד גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא, אָפְכִיתוּ לֵיהּ לְדִינָא עִילָּוֵיהּ? הָאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִיבַּעְיָא בָּעֵי לַהּ רָבָא, וְלָא פְּשִׁיט?! הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא אִתְּמַר לָא הָכִי וְלָא הָכִי, תְּפַסָה — לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינַּהּ, לָא תְּפַסָה — לָא יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ.
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’t 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.
וּמְשַׁהֵינַן לַהּ תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא אַגִּיטָּא, וּבְהָנָךְ תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא לֵית לַהּ מְזוֹנֵי מִבַּעַל.
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.
אָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר קִיסְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כּוֹתְבִין אִגֶּרֶת מָרֶד עַל אֲרוּסָה, וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין אִגֶּרֶת מָרֶד עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם. מֵיתִיבִי: אַחַת לִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה, אֲפִילּוּ נִדָּה, אֲפִילּוּ חוֹלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם!
§ 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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁתָּבַע הוּא, כָּאן שֶׁתָּבְעָה הִיא. דְּאָמַר רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִימִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תָּבַע הוּא — נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. תָּבְעָה הִיא — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהּ.
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 Taḥalifa 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.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ לְהָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל — בְּשֶׁתָּבְעָה הִיא, הַאי ״כּוֹתְבִין אִגֶּרֶת מֶרֶד עַל אֲרוּסָה״? ״לַאֲרוּסָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, תְּנִי ״לָאֲרוּסָה״.
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.
מַאי שְׁנָא שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם דְּלָא — דְּאָמְרִינַן לַהּ: זִיל, לָא מִפַּקְּדַתְּ, אֲרוּסָה נָמֵי, נֵימָא לַהּ: זִיל, לָא מִפַּקְּדַתְּ! אֶלָּא בְּבָאָה מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה, דְּאָמְרָה: בָּעֵינָא חוּטְרָא לִידָא וּמָרָה לִקְבוּרָה.
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.
הָכִי נָמֵי שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, בְּבָאָה מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה?! אֶלָּא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שֶׁתָּבַע הוּא, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן לַחֲלוֹץ, וְכָאן לְיַיבֵּם. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תָּבַע לַחְלוֹץ — נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. תָּבַע לְיַיבֵּם — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ.
The Gemara asks: So too here, if she is a widow awaiting her yavam who comes with a claim, why shouldn’t 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’s 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 ḥalitza and she refused. There, Shmuel’s 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 Yoḥanan said: If the yavam asked her to perform ḥalitza and she refused, the court responds to him. If he asked to perform levirate marriage, the court does not respond to him.
מַאי שְׁנָא לְיַיבֵּם דְּלָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: זִיל וּנְסֵיב אִיתְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי. לַחְלוֹץ נָמֵי נֵימָא לֵיהּ: זִיל וּנְסֵיב אִיתְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי!
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 ḥalitza also, let us say to him: Go and marry another woman. The difference between the two cases is still not clear.
אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר: ״כֵּיוָן דַּאֲגִידָא בִּי, לָא קָא יָהֲבוּ לִי אַחֲרִיתִי״.
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 ḥalitza, 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 ḥalitza.
הָכָא נָמֵי: ״כֵּיוָן דַּאֲגִידָא בִּי, לָא קָא יָהֲבוּ לִי אַחֲרִיתִי״! אֶלָּא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שֶׁתָּבַע לְיַיבֵּם, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — כְּמִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּאן — כְּמִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.
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’t 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 the baraita, where the court writes a letter of rebellion, it is in accordance with the first mishna. There, in Shmuel’s statement, where it doesn’t write one, it is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.
דִּתְנַן: מִצְוַת יִבּוּם קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה — בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְכַּוְּונִין לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוְּונִין לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה, אָמְרוּ: מִצְוַת חֲלִיצָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת יִבּוּם.
As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 13a): The mitzva of levirate marriage precedes the mitzva of ḥalitza. 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 ḥalitza precedes the mitzva of levirate marriage. Shmuel’s 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.
עַד מָתַי הוּא פּוֹחֵת וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַרְפְּעִיקִין? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִסְתֵּירָא. וְכַמָּה אִסְתֵּירָא — פַּלְגָא דְזוּזָא. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה טַרְפְּעִיקִין, שֶׁהֵן תֵּשַׁע מֵעֵין, מָעָה וַחֲצִי לְכׇל יוֹם.
§ 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’ikin and not in dinars. The Gemara asks: What are terapa’ikin? 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’ikin, which are nine ma’as, a ma’a and a half for each day, multiplied by six for the six days of the week.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף לִשְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי שְׁנָא אִיהוּ דְּיָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ דְּשַׁבָּת. וּמַאי שְׁנָא אִיהִי דְּלָא יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ דְּשַׁבָּת? אִיהִי דְּמִיפְחָת קָא פָחֵית, לָא מִיחֲזֵי כִּשְׂכַר שַׁבָּת, אִיהוּ דְּאוֹסוֹפֵי קָא מוֹסְפָא,
Rabbi Ḥiyya 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,
מִיחֲזֵי כִּשְׂכַר שַׁבָּת.
it does appear to be Shabbat wages. Consequently, the Sages decreed that he should not give her money for Shabbat.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף לִשְׁמוּאֵל: מָה בֵּין מוֹרֵד לְמוֹרֶדֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צֵא וּלְמַד מִשּׁוּק שֶׁל זוֹנוֹת, מִי שׂוֹכֵר אֶת מִי? דָּבָר אַחֵר: זֶה יִצְרוֹ מִבַּחוּץ, וְזוֹ יִצְרָהּ מִבִּפְנִים.
On the same issue, Rabbi Ḥiyya 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’s 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.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשְׁרֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ — לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מִשְּׁנֵי קַבִּין חִטִּין, אוֹ מֵאַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין שְׂעוֹרִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא פָּסַק לָהּ שְׂעוֹרִין אֶלָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, שֶׁהָיָה סָמוּךְ לֶאֱדוֹם. וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ חֲצִי קַב קִיטְנִית, וַחֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן, וְקַב גְּרוֹגְרוֹת אוֹ מָנֶה דְּבֵילָה. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ — פּוֹסֵק לְעוּמָּתָן פֵּירוֹת מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.
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.
וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ מִטָּה, מַפָּץ וּמַחְצֶלֶת. וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ כִּפָּה לְרֹאשָׁהּ, וַחֲגוֹר לְמׇתְנֶיהָ, וּמִנְעָלִים מִמּוֹעֵד לְמוֹעֵד, וְכֵלִים שֶׁל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לֹא חֲדָשִׁים בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, וְלֹא שְׁחָקִים בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ כֵּלִים שֶׁל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְהִיא מִתְכַּסָּה בִּבְלָאוֹתֵיהֶן בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה. וְהַשְּׁחָקִים — שֶׁלָּהּ.
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.
נוֹתֵן לָהּ מָעָה כֶּסֶף לְצוֹרְכָּהּ. וְאוֹכֶלֶת עִמּוֹ מִלֵּילֵי שַׁבָּת לְלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת. וְאִם אֵין נוֹתֵן לָהּ מָעָה כֶּסֶף לְצוֹרְכָּהּ — מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהּ.
In addition to the above, he must give her another silver ma’a 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’a coin for her needs, her earnings belong to her.
וּמָה הִיא עוֹשָׂה לוֹ? מִשְׁקַל חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שְׁתִי בִּיהוּדָה, שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים בַּגָּלִיל. אוֹ מִשְׁקַל עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים עֵרֶב בִּיהוּדָה, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים סְלָעִים בַּגָּלִיל. וְאִם הָיְתָה מְנִיקָה — פּוֹחֲתִין לָהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּמוֹסִיפִין לָהּ עַל מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל בִּמְכוּבָּד הַכֹּל לְפִי כְּבוֹדוֹ.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין, לָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא, וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דִּתְנַן: וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ — מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. מְזוֹנוֹ לַחוֹל וְלֹא לַשַּׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא לַחוֹל. וְזֶה וָזֶה מִתְכַּוְּונִין לְהָקֵל.
GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’im disagree with regard to the definition of these two meals: It is referring to one’s 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.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: כִּכָּר הַלָּקוּחַ בְּפוּנְדְּיוֹן, מֵאַרְבַּע סְאִין לְסֶלַע. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת לַכִּכָּר, מִשָּׁלֹשׁ כִּכָּרוֹת לַקַּב.
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’a of wheat are sold for a sela. According to this calculation, a pundeyon can purchase one-twelfth of a se’a of wheat, which is equivalent to half of a kav, as there are six kav in a se’a. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
חֶצְיָהּ — לְבַיִת הַמְנוּגָּע. וַחֲצִי חֶצְיָהּ — לִפְסוֹל אֶת הַגְּוִיָּיה. וַחֲצִי חֲצִי חֶצְיָהּ — לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין.
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.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא, תַּמְנֵי הָוְיָין! וְאִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, תַּמְנֵי סְרֵי הָוְיָין!
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’s sustenance? If it is Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא, וְכִדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: צֵא מֵהֶן שְׁלִישׁ לַחֶנְווֹנִי. הָכָא נָמֵי: אַיְיתִי תִּילְתָּא שְׁדִי עֲלַיְיהוּ. אַכַּתִּי תַּרְתֵּי סְרֵי הָוְיָין! אוֹכֶלֶת עִמּוֹ לֵילֵי שַׁבָּת.
The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and this is as Rav Ḥisda said in explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka’s opinion: Deduct one-third for the grocer’s 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.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲכִילָה מַמָּשׁ. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲכִילָה תַּשְׁמִישׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? וְעוֹד, תְּלֵיסַר הָוְיָין! אֶלָּא כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, צֵא מֵהֶן מֶחֱצָה לַחֶנְווֹנִי. הָכִי נָמֵי אַיְתִי פַּלְגָא וּשְׁדִי עֲלַיְיהוּ.
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 Ḥisda said, with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka’s opinion: Deduct one-half for the grocer’s markup. So too here, bring a half and add it to the total amount, which means she has enough for sixteen meals, not eight.
קַשְׁיָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא אַדְּרַב חִסְדָּא! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּאַתְרָא דְּיָהֲבִי צִיבֵי, הָא בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא יָהֲבִי צִיבֵי.
The Gemara asks: This is difficult with regard to one statement of Rav Ḥisda, which seemingly contradicts the other statement of Rav Ḥisda. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement, that the grocer’s 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’s 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.
אִי הָכִי, שִׁיתַּסְרֵי הָוְיָין. כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי חִידְקָא, דְּאָמַר: אַרְבַּע סְעוּדוֹת חַיָּיב אָדָם לֶאֱכוֹל בַּשַּׁבָּת.
After reconciling the apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rav Ḥisda, the Gemara returns to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥidka, 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.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, דַּל חֲדָא לְאָרְחֵי וּפָרְחֵי.
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.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לְרַבָּנַן — דַּל תְּלָת לְאָרְחֵי וּפָרְחֵי, לְרַבִּי חִידְקָא — דַּל תַּרְתֵּי לְאָרְחֵי וּפָרְחֵי.
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 Ḥidka, 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא פָּסַק שְׂעוֹרִין וְכוּ׳. אֶלָּא בֶּאֱדוֹם הוּא דְּאָכְלִין שְׂעוֹרִים, בְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא אָכְלִי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא פָּסַק שְׂעוֹרִים כִּפְלַיִם בְּחִטִּין אֶלָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁהָיָה סָמוּךְ לֶאֱדוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׂעוֹרִין אֲדוֹמִיּוֹת רָעוֹת הֵן.
§ 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.
וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ חֲצִי קַב קִיטְנִית. וְאִילּוּ יַיִן לָא קָתָנֵי. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר
§ 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:
