כתובות סה

כתובות סה

אֵין פּוֹסְקִין יֵינוֹת לָאִשָּׁה, וְאִם תֹּאמַר: ״אֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי מְאַהֲבַי נוֹתְנֵי לַחְמִי וּמֵימַי צַמְרִי וּפִשְׁתִּי שַׁמְנִי וְשִׁקּוּיָי״ — דְּבָרִים שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מִשְׁתּוֹקֶקֶת עֲלֵיהֶן, וּמַאי נִינְהוּ — תַּכְשִׁיטִין.

Wines are not allotted to a wife. And if you say that in the verse: “I will go after my lovers who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” (Hosea 2:7), “drink [shikkuyai]” is apparently a reference to wine, which indicates that it is usual for a woman to receive wine, this is invalid, since actually shikkuyai is not referring to wine but rather to items that a woman desires [mishtokeket]. And what are these? Jewelry or other ornaments, not wine.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר נְבִירְיָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אִישׁ כְּפַר נְפוֹר חַיִל: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין פּוֹסְקִין יֵינוֹת לָאִשָּׁה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתָּקׇם חַנָּה אַחֲרֵי אׇכְלָה בְשִׁילֹה וְאַחֲרֵי שָׁתֹה״. ״שָׁתָה״, וְלֹא ״שָׁתָת״.

Rabbi Yehuda of the village of Neviraya, and some say of the village of Nefor Ḥayil, interpreted a verse: From where is it derived that one does not allot wines for a woman? As it is stated: “So Hannah rose up after she had eaten in Shiloh and after he had drunk” (I Samuel 1:9). It states: “He had drunk,” and not: She had drunk. This teaches that although she ate, she did not drink wine.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״אָכְלָה״ וְלֹא ״אׇכְלוֹ״, הָכִי נָמֵי?! אֲנַן מִדְּשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִבּוּרֵיהּ קָאָמְרִינַן. מִכְּדֵי בְּגַוַּהּ קָא עָסֵיק וְאָתֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא שַׁנִּי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ ״שָׁתָה״ וְלֹא ״שָׁתָת״.

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, by the same reasoning, should the phrase “she had eaten,” which is in the feminine, indeed be interpreted to mean that only she ate, and that he did not eat? The Gemara answers: We say this interpretation from the fact that the verse changed its language. Since the verse was already dealing with her, what is the reason that it changed the terminology and did not state: And had drunk, in the feminine? One can learn from this that “he had drunk” means that he drank, but she did not drink.

מֵיתִיבִי: רְגִילָה — נוֹתְנִין לָהּ! רְגִילָה שָׁאנֵי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: רְגִילָה — נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כּוֹס אֶחָד. שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה — נוֹתְנִין לָהּ שְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If a woman is accustomed to wine, she is given wine. The Gemara explains: If the woman is accustomed to wine it is different, as Rav Ḥinnana bar Kahana said that Shmuel said: If a woman is accustomed to drinking wine, she is given one cup, and if she is not accustomed to wine, she is given two cups.

מַאי קָאָמַר?! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: רְגִילָה, בִּפְנֵי בַּעְלָהּ — שְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בַעְלָהּ — נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כּוֹס אֶחָד. אֵינָהּ רְגִילָה, בִּפְנֵי בַעְלָהּ — אֶלָּא כּוֹס אֶחָד, שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בַעְלָהּ — אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כׇּל עִיקָּר.

The Gemara asks: What is Shmuel saying? His statement is the opposite of what one would logically expect. Abaye said: This is what he is saying: If she is accustomed to wine, then in the presence of her husband she is given two cups, and if she is not in the presence of her husband she is given one cup. If she is not accustomed to drinking wine, then in the presence of her husband she is given only one cup, and if she is not in the presence of her husband she is not given wine at all.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: רְגִילָה, נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לְצִיקֵי קְדֵירָה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן שֶׁפָּסְקוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים סָאתַיִם יַיִן לְצִיקֵי קְדֵרָה מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. אָמְרָה לָהֶן: כָּךְ תִּפְסְקוּ לִבְנוֹתֵיכֶם. תָּנָא: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם הָיְתָה, וְלֹא עָנוּ אַחֲרֶיהָ אָמֵן.

And if you wish, say instead: If she is accustomed to wine, she is given wine, but not for drinking, rather for meat pudding [tzikei], made with wine, flour, and leftover meat in a pot. As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: An incident occurred involving the daughter-in-law of Nakdimon ben Guryon, whose husband had died. The Sages apportioned for her from his estate two se’a of wine for pudding, from one Shabbat eve to another. She said to them, as a blessing out of gratitude: So may you apportion for your own daughters an amount as large as this. It was taught: She was a widow waiting for her yavam, and consequently, the Sages did not answer amen after her blessing, as they did not want their daughters to reach her unfortunate state.

תָּנָא: כּוֹס אֶחָד — יָפֶה לָאִשָּׁה. שְׁנַיִם — נִיוּוּל הוּא. שְׁלֹשָׁה — תּוֹבַעַת בַּפֶּה. אַרְבָּעָה — אֲפִילּוּ חֲמוֹר תּוֹבַעַת בַּשּׁוּק וְאֵינָהּ מַקְפֶּדֶת. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ. אֲבָל בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ, לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

It was taught in a baraita: One cup of wine is good for a woman; two cups is a disgrace, as she will start to become drunk; after three cups, she will become lustful and verbally request sexual intercourse, which is unseemly; after four cups of wine, she will even request intercourse from a donkey in the marketplace, as at this stage she is so drunk that she is not particular about with whom she has relations. Rava said: They taught that a woman should not drink much wine only if her husband is not with her. However, if her husband is with her, we have no problem with it. If she feels an urge for intercourse her husband is available.

וְהָא חַנָּה, דְּבַעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ הֲוַאי! אַכְסְנַאי שָׁאנֵי. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מִנַּיִן לְאַכְסְנַאי שֶׁאָסוּר בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ בַבֹּקֶר וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַיָּשׁוּבוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל בֵּיתָם הָרָמָתָה וַיֵּדַע אֶלְקָנָה אֶת חַנָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַיִּזְכְּרֶהָ ה׳״, הַשְׁתָּא — אִין, מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the case of Hannah was one in which her husband was with her, and yet this episode is cited as a source for the halakha that a woman should not drink wine. The Gemara answers: The case of a guest is different, as Rav Huna said: From where is it derived that a guest is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations? As it is stated: “And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the Lord, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah; and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her” (I Samuel 1:19). This verse indicates that now, after they returned home, yes, they engaged in relations; at the outset, when they were still in Shiloh, no, they did not. Therefore, Hannah did not drink wine in Shiloh.

חוּמָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּאַבָּיֵי אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: פְּסוֹק לִי מְזוֹנֵי! פְּסַק לַהּ. פְּסוֹק לִי חַמְרָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָדַעְנָא בֵּיהּ בְּנַחְמָנִי דְּלָא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי חַמְרָא. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: חַיֵּי דְּמָר דַּהֲוָה מַשְׁקֵי לִי בְּשׁוּפְרָזֵי כִּי הַאי. בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָא מַחְוְיָא לֵיהּ אִיגַּלִּי דְּרָעַאּ, נְפַל נְהוֹרָא בְּבֵי דִינָא.

The Gemara relates: Abaye’s wife, Ḥoma, came before Rava after Abaye died, as Rava was the local judge. She said to him: Apportion sustenance for me, as I am entitled to be sustained by Abaye’s heirs. Rava apportioned sustenance for her. She subsequently said to him: Apportion wine for me as well. Rava said to her: I know that Naḥmani, i.e., Abaye, did not drink wine. Since you were not accustomed to drinking wine during your husband’s lifetime, you are not entitled to it after his death. She said to him: By the Master’s life, this is not correct. In fact, he would give me wine to drink in cups [shufrazei] as large as this. She gestured with her hands to show how large the cups were. While she was showing him the size of the cups, her arm became uncovered, and she was so beautiful that it was as though a light had shined in the courtroom.

קָם רָבָא, עָל לְבֵיתֵיהּ תַּבְעַהּ לְבַת רַב חִסְדָּא. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ בַּת רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאן הֲוַי הָאִידָּנָא בְּבֵי דִּינָא? אֲמַר לַהּ: חוּמָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּאַבָּיֵי. נָפְקָא אַבָּתְרַהּ, מָחֲתָא לָהּ בְּקוּלְפֵי דְשִׁידָּא עַד דְּאַפְּקַהּ לַהּ מִכּוּלֵּי מָחוֹזָא. אָמְרָה לַהּ: קְטַלְתְּ לִיךְ תְּלָתָא, וְאָתֵת לְמִיקְטַל אַחֲרִינָא?!

Rava arose, went home, and requested intercourse from his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda. The daughter of Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who was just now in the courtroom? Noticing his unusual behavior, she suspected that there must have been a woman in the court. He said to her: Ḥoma, Abaye’s wife, was there. Upon hearing this, Rava’s wife went after Ḥoma and struck her with the lock of a chest [kulpei deshida] until she drove her out of the entire city of Meḥoza, saying to her: You have already killed three men, as Abaye was your third husband, and now you come to kill another one, my husband Rava? Since you showed him your beauty, he will want to marry you.

דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: פְּסוֹק לִי מְזוֹנֵי! פְּסַק לַהּ. פְּסוֹק לִי חַמְרָא! פְּסַק לַהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: יָדַעְנָא בְּהוּ בִּבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא דְּשָׁתוּ חַמְרָא.

The Gemara relates a similar incident: The wife of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, came before Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, for judgment. She said to him: Apportion sustenance for me. Rav Neḥemya apportioned a certain amount of sustenance for her. She said to him: Apportion wine for me as well. He apportioned wine for her. He said to her: I know that the residents of Meḥoza are accustomed to drinking wine, and therefore you, too, are entitled to wine, in accordance with the local custom.

דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא מִדְּוִיל אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: פְּסוֹק לִי מְזוֹנֵי! פְּסַק לַהּ. פְּסוֹק לִי חַמְרָא! פְּסַק לַהּ. פְּסוֹק לִי שִׁירָאֵי! אֲמַר לַהּ: שִׁירָאֵי לְמָה? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: לָךְ וּלְחַבְרָךְ וּלְחַבְרוּרָךְ.

Similarly, the wife of Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of D’vil, came before Rav Yosef. She said to him: Apportion sustenance for me. He apportioned sustenance for her. She added: Apportion wine for me. He apportioned wine for her. She continued: Apportion silk garments for me. Rav Yosef said to her: Why do you need silk garments? She said to him: For you, for your friends, and for your friends’ friends. Even as a widow, I should not have to be ashamed in front of you and your colleagues.

וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ מִטָּה וּמַפָּץ וְכוּ׳. מַפָּץ וּמַחְצֶלֶת לְמָה לַהּ דְּיָהֵב לַהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגִי דְּמָלוּ פּוּרְיָא בְּחַבְלֵי, דְּמַבְגַּר לַהּ.

§ The mishna taught: And he must give her a bed, a soft mat, and a hard mat. The Gemara asks: Why does he need to give her a soft mat and a hard mat if she already has a bed? Rav Pappa said: The mishna is speaking of a place where it is the custom to fill a bed with ropes. Because these ropes cause her suffering and age [mevager] her, she covers them with a mat, which serves as a kind of mattress upon which she can lie in comfort.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כַּר וָכֶסֶת. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נָתָן אָמְרוּ: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כַּר וָכֶסֶת. הֵיכִי דָמֵי: אִי דְּאוֹרְחַהּ, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא? וְאִי דְּלָאו אוֹרְחַהּ, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי נָתָן?

The Sages taught: One does not give a poor woman a pillow and a cushion. In the name of Rabbi Natan, they said: One does give her a pillow and a cushion. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is her usual manner to use a pillow and cushion, what is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna that she is not given these items? And if it is not her usual manner, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Natan?

לָא צְרִיכָא, כְּגוֹן דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ וְלָאו אוֹרְחַהּ דִּידַהּ. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר, אָמַר לַהּ: כִּי אָזֵילְנָא שָׁקֵילְנָא לְהוּ, וְכִי אָתֵינָא, מַיְיתֵינָא לְהוּ בַּהֲדַאי. וְרַבִּי נָתָן סָבַר: אָמַרָה לֵיהּ: זִימְנִין דְּמִיתְרְמֵי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְלָא מָצֵית מַיְיתֵת לְהוּ, וְשָׁקְלַתְּ לְהוּ לְדִידִי וּמַגְנֵית לִי עַל אַרְעָא.

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where it is his manner to use a pillow and cushion, but it is not her manner. The first tanna holds that the husband says to her: When I go away from you, I will take my bedding with me, and when I come back I will bring it with me. And Rabbi Natan holds that she can say to him: Sometimes it happens that you arrive at twilight and you are unable to bring it with you, and you will take my bedding and you will make me lie on the ground. Therefore, I require extra pillows and cushions.

וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ כִּפָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי:

§ The mishna further taught: And he must give her a cap, and shoes every Festival, and clothes once a year. Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

הַאי תַּנָּא שְׁלִיחַ עַרְטִלַאי וּרְמֵי מְסָאנֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תַּנָּא בִּמְקוֹם הָרִים קָאֵי, דְּלָא סַגִּיא בְּלָא תְּלָתָא זוּגֵי מְסָאנֵי. וְאַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּנִיתְּבִינְהוּ נִיהֲלַהּ בַּמּוֹעֵד, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנֶיהְוֵי לַהּ שִׂמְחָה בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ.

This tanna creates a bizarre situation in which the woman is left naked but wearing shoes, as the husband must give his wife shoes three times a year but new clothing only once a year. Abaye said to him: The tanna is standing, i.e., speaking of, a mountainous region, in which she cannot do without three pairs of shoes, as shoes wear out quickly in hilly areas. And in passing, the tanna teaches us that he should give them to her on a Festival, so that she will rejoice in them during the Festival.

וְכֵלִים שֶׁל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל בִּמְכוּבָּד — הַכֹּל לְפִי כְּבוֹדוֹ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז מַמָּשׁ, עָנִי, חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז מְנָא לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּזֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי.

§ The mishna teaches: And he must give her clothes with a value of fifty dinars. Abaye said: This is referring to fifty simple [peshitei] dinars, used as the money of the state, which are worth only one-eighth of Tyrian dinars. From where did Abaye derive this? From the fact that it teaches: In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to the poorest of Jews. However, in the case of a prominent man, all the amounts are increased in accordance with his prominence. And if it enters your mind that the mishna means literally fifty dinars, from where would such a poor man get fifty dinars? How could a pauper afford to give such a large sum to his wife for her clothing? Rather, learn from this that the mishna is referring to fifty simple dinars.

וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לֹא חֲדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מוֹתַר מְזוֹנוֹת לַבַּעַל, מוֹתַר בְּלָאוֹת לָאִשָּׁה. מוֹתַר בְּלָאוֹת לָאִשָּׁה, לְמָה לַהּ? אָמַר רַחֲבָה: שֶׁמִּתְכַּסָּה בָּהֶן בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְגַּנֶּה עַל בַּעְלָהּ.

§ The mishna further states: And he may not give her new clothes in the summer, nor worn garments in the rainy season, and the leftover, worn clothes belong to her. The Sages taught: Leftover sustenance belongs to the husband, whereas leftover, worn clothes belong to the wife. The Gemara asks: With regard to the statement that worn clothes belong to the wife, why does she need these old clothes? Raḥava said: She requires them, as she covers herself with them during her days of menstruation, so that she does not become repulsive to her husband. If she wears her normal clothes when she is menstruating, he will later be disgusted by her.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָקְטִינַן, מוֹתַר בְּלָאוֹת אַלְמָנָה לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא תִּתְגַּנֵּי בְּאַפֵּיהּ, הָכָא — תִּתְגַּנֵּי וְתִתְגַּנֵּי.

Abaye said: We have a tradition that the leftover, worn clothes of a widow belong to the husband’s heirs. The reason is that it is only in that case there, concerning a woman whose husband is alive, that the reasoning so that she does not become repulsive to her husband can be applied. Whereas here, when he is dead, let her become repulsive. There is no need to ensure that she find favor in the eyes of his heirs.

נוֹתֵן לָהּ מָעָה כֶּסֶף וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״אוֹכֶלֶת״? רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת מַמָּשׁ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: תַּשְׁמִישׁ.

§ The mishna teaches that he gives her a silver ma’a, and she eats with him from one Shabbat evening to the next. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: She eats, in this context? Rav Naḥman said: It means literally that she eats with him once a week. Rav Ashi said: This is referring to sexual relations.

תְּנַן: אוֹכֶלֶת עִמּוֹ לֵילֵי שַׁבָּת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲכִילָה — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״אוֹכֶלֶת״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ, מַאי ״אוֹכֶלֶת״? לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״אָכְלָה וּמָחֲתָה פִיהָ וְאָמְרָה לֹא פָעַלְתִּי אָוֶן״.

The mishna states: And she eats with him from Shabbat evening to Shabbat evening. Granted, according to the one who says that it means actual eating, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: She eats. However, according to the one who says that it is referring to sexual relations, what is the meaning of: She eats? The Gemara explains: It is a euphemism, as it is written: “So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says: I have done no wickedness” (Proverbs 30:20).

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אוֹכֶלֶת בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲכִילָה — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְשַׁבָּת״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ — תַּשְׁמִישׁ בְּשַׁבָּת מִי אִיכָּא? וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשִׁים הֵן, וְאֵין מְשַׁמְּשִׁין מִטּוֹתֵיהֶן בַּיּוֹם! הָאָמַר רָבָא: בְּבַיִת אָפֵל מוּתָּר.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, disagreeing with the tanna of the mishna: She eats on Shabbat evening and on Shabbat. Granted, according to the one who says that it means actual eating, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: And Shabbat, i.e., she dines with him also on the day of Shabbat. However, according to the one who says that it is referring to sexual relations, are there sexual relations on the day of Shabbat? But didn’t Rav Huna say: The Jewish people are holy and therefore do not engage in sexual relations during the day? The Gemara answers that Rava said: If they are in a dark house, it is permitted to engage in relations even during the day.

וְאִם הָיְתָה מְנִיקָה. דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי עוּלָּא רַבָּה אַפִּיתְחָא דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין אָדָם זָן אֶת בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו כְּשֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים, אֲבָל זָן קְטַנֵּי קְטַנִּים.

§ The mishna teaches: And if she is nursing, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. Rabbi Ulla the Great taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi: Although the Sages said that a person is not obligated to sustain his sons and daughters when they are young, still, he must sustain the very young ones.

עַד כַּמָּה — עַד בֶּן שֵׁשׁ, כִּדְרַב אַסִּי. דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: קָטָן בֶּן שֵׁשׁ יוֹצֵא בְּעֵירוּב אִמּוֹ.

The Gemara asks: Until when are they considered very young? Until the age of six, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said: A six-year-old minor may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv, if she prepared an eiruv on one side of the city. He is included in his mother’s eiruv rather than that of his father, as he is considered subordinate to his mother.

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: הָיְתָה מְנִיקָה — פּוֹחֲתִין לָהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּמוֹסִיפִין לָהּ עַל מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי לְמֵיכַל בַּהֲדַהּ? וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּחוֹלָה הִיא.

The Gemara asks: From where is this halakha that Rabbi Ulla taught derived? The Gemara explains that it is derived from the fact that it teaches: If she is nursing, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. What is the reason for this? Is it not because the baby needs to eat together with her? This shows that a father is responsible to provide for his young child. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps he increases her sustenance not due to the baby but because she is considered ill due to her weakness while nursing, in which case the obligation stems from his obligation to his wife, not to his child.

אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנֵי ״אִם הָיְתָה חוֹלָה״, מַאי אִם הָיְתָה מְנִיקָה? וְדִלְמָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּסְתַם מְנִיקוֹת חוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ. אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מוֹסִיפִין לָהּ יַיִן, שֶׁהַיַּיִן יָפֶה לְחָלָב.

The Gemara retorts: If so, let the mishna teach: If she was ill. What is the reason that it specifies: If she was nursing? The reason for this halakha must certainly be due to the child. The Gemara again rejects this answer: But perhaps the mishna teaches us this, that in an ordinary situation, nursing women are considered ill, and that a husband must increase the sustenance all the more so if his wife is actually ill. Consequently, this does not prove that a father is obligated to sustain his very young child. It was stated that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Wine is added for a nursing woman, as wine is good for milk.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אַף עַל פִּי

מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְבַעְלָהּ. וִירוּשָּׁתָהּ — הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. בּוֹשְׁתָּהּ, וּפְגָמָהּ — שֶׁלָּהּ.

MISHNA: A lost object found by a wife and the wife’s earnings belong to her husband. And with regard to her inheritance, the husband enjoys the profits of this property in her lifetime. If she is humiliated or injured, the perpetrator is liable to pay compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as relevant. This payment belongs to her.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר — לָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים, וְלוֹ אֶחָד. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים, וְלָהּ אֶחָד. שֶׁלּוֹ יִנָּתֵן מִיָּד, וְשֶׁלָּהּ יִלְקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When it is an injury that is in a concealed part of the woman’s body, she receives two parts, i.e., two-thirds, of the payment for humiliation and degradation, and the husband receives one part, i.e., one-third, as the injury affects him as well. And when it is an injury that is in an exposed part of her body, he receives two parts, as he suffers public humiliation due to her condition, and she receives one part. His payment should be given to him immediately. And with her portion, land should be purchased with it, and he enjoys the profits of that property.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא הָאָב זַכַּאי בְּבִתּוֹ בְּקִידּוּשֶׁיהָ, בְּכֶסֶף, בִּשְׁטָר וּבְבִיאָה. זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וּבַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. מְקַבֵּל אֶת גִּיטָּהּ, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. נִישֵּׂאת — יָתֵר עָלָיו הַבַּעַל, שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (46b) that the father is entitled, in the case of his daughter, to authority over her betrothal, whether it is effected with money, with a document, or through sexual intercourse. Furthermore, as long as she is single, her father is entitled to any lost object that she finds, and to her earnings, and to effect nullification of her vows (see Numbers, chapter 30). Her father also receives her bill of divorce on her behalf, but he does not enjoy the profits of her property in her lifetime. If she is married, the rights of the husband are greater than his, as the husband enjoys the profits of her property in her lifetime. What, then, is the mishna teaching beyond that which was taught elsewhere?

בּוֹשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא וְרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the halakhot concerning compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as ownership of these payments is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis.

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא: מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה לְעַצְמָהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְבַעְלָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה הַעֲדָפָה,

§ A tanna teaches a baraita before Rava: A lost object found by a wife belongs to her; Rabbi Akiva says it belongs to her husband. Rava said to that tanna: This baraita is puzzling. Now, if, with regard to the surplus of the wife’s earnings beyond the minimum sum stipulated by the Sages,