# snc

lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k46b_1:" Since he takes the verses literally."
,k46b_2:" While she is under the age of twelve and a half years and one day."
,k46b_3:" Sc. the money belongs to him."
,k46b_4:" The receipt of the deed by him effects his daughter's betrothal."
,k46b_5:" It is within his rights to allow such an act to have the validity of a <i>kinyan</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k46b_6:" V. Num. XXX. 4ff."
,k46b_7:" If she was divorced during her betrothal before attaining her adolescence (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. bogereth)."
,k46b_8:" Of property that came into her possession from her mother's side."
,k46b_9:" Such property passes into the possession of a father as heir to his daughter only after her death."
,k46b_10:" In addition to the privileges enjoyed by a father."
,k46b_11:" Cf. <i>infra</i> 65b, Kid. 3b."
,k46b_12:" If she was taken captive."
,k46b_13:" For his wife's funeral."
,k46b_14:" That the money of the betrothal belongs to her father."
,k46b_15:" Ex. XXI, 11, referring to a Hebrew maidservant."
,k46b_16:" To whom a father sold his daughter (v. ibid. 7)."
,k46b_17:" When she leaves him on becoming a na'arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> and cf. Kid. 4a)."
,k46b_18:" When, on marriage, she passes out of his control."
,k46b_19:" Since beside the master spoken of in the Scriptural text (cf. Ex. XXI, 8) the daughter of an Israelite has no other master but her father."
,k46b_20:" The money of her betrothal."
,k46b_21:" The implication of the text cited merely indicating that, unlike the case of the liberation of an Israelite maidservant, her passing out of her father's control at betrothal is attended by money, without necessarily meaning that this money goes to her father."
,k46b_22:" Lit., 'now'."
,k46b_23:" Lit., 'accepts'."
,k46b_24:" Deut. XXII, 16."
,k46b_25:" Of course not. Hence it must be concluded that it, as stated in our Mishnah, belongs to her father."
,k46b_26:" A father's right to the betrothal money of his daughter, as implied in the Scriptural text cited."
,k46b_27:" Though the Scriptural text referred to deals with an evil name brought upon a na'arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) it might nevertheless be contended that the betrothal of that na'arah took place while she was still a minor."
,k46b_28:" Lit., 'a hand'."
,k46b_29:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k46b_30:" Lit., 'a hand'."
,k46b_31:" Num. XXX, 17."
,k46b_32:" Ex. XXI, 7."
,k46b_33:" Since 'daughter' and 'maidservant' appear in juxtaposition an analogy between them may be drawn."
,k46b_34:" <i>Supra</i> 40b, <i>infra</i> 47a, Kid. 8a."
,k46b_35:" Lit., 'wherefore to me'."
,k46b_36:" That a father is entitled to his daughter's handiwork."
,k46b_37:" And, therefore, no deduction from it can be made in respect of handiwork. Similarly, here also, no deduction from it could be made in respect of a father's right to his daughter's money of betrothal. The previous question, therefore, arises again."
,k46b_38:" That a father is entitled to his daughter's money of betrothal."
,k46b_39:" From the law of the annulment of vows."
,k46b_40:" As the fine prescribed in Deut. XXII, 19, belongs to her father so does the money."
,k46b_41:" Which belongs to her father (v. <i>supra</i> 40b)."
,k46b_42:" From the case under consideration."
,k46b_43:" As a father has the right to dispose of the indignity and blemish of his daughter while she is still a <i>na'arah</i>, by allowing any sort of person to marry her, he is also entitled to compensation for any indignity or blemish anyone inflicted upon her without his consent."
,k46b_44:" The question, whence is it deduced that the money of betrothal belongs to her father, thus arises again."
,k46b_45:" Why deduction may be made from Ex. XXI, 11 (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 266 notes 13-20, and text)."
,k46b_46:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 266 notes 15-18 and text."
,k46b_47:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 266, n. 17."
,k46b_48:" As in the original it is the master, and not the maidservant, who, in the absence of the specific text to the contrary, would have received the money for the latter's redemption, so in the implication it must be the father (who corresponds to the master), and not his daughter, who is to receive the money when she passes out of his control at betrothal (v. Rashi). [Now since we learn that her father is entitled to her betrothal money, it follows that the right to effect her betrothal is vested in him, Tosaf.]."
,k46b_49:" Lit., 'but that'."
,k46b_50:" Lit., there'."
,k46b_51:" Until her entry into the bridal chamber (Huppah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) a daughter is still partially under the control of her father who is still entitled to her handiwork and remains her heir."
,k46b_52:" <i>Na'arah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k46b_53:" The father alone has no longer the right to do so. For further notes on the passage v. Kid. (Sonc. ed.) p. 36."
,k46b_54:" A father's absolute right to effect the betrothal of his young daughter (v. <i>supra</i> p. 266, nn. 3-4) by these two methods."
,k46b_55:" Deut. XXIV, 2; <i>and becometh</i> [H]."
,k46b_56:" [H] lit., 'beings', 'becomings', of the same rt. [H] as that of [H] (v. <i>supra</i> p. 268, n. 15)."
,k46b_57:" As betrothal by money is entirely in the hands of the father (to whom the money belongs, as has been shewn <i>supra</i>) so is betrothal by deed or intercourse. "
}

txt:
<p>
must not the intercourse in both cases be in a natural manner?<a id="k46b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact, however, is, said R. Kahana in the name of R. Johanan, that the husband is not held guilty unless he had intercourse In a natural manner and he brought up an evil name upon her in respect of a natural intercourse.
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A FATHER HAS AUTHORITY OVER HIS DAUGHTER<a id="k46b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IN RESPECT OF HER BETROTHAL [WHETHER IT WAS EFFECTED] BY MONEY,<a id="k46b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; DEED<a id="k46b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OR INTERCOURSE;<a id="k46b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; HE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SHE FINDS AND TO HER HANDIWORK; [HE HAS THE RIGHT] OF ANNULLING HER VOWS<a id="k46b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HE RECEIVES HER BILL OF DIVORCE;<a id="k46b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT HE HAS NO USUFRUCT<a id="k46b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; DURING HER LIFETIME.<a id="k46b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; WHEN SHE MARRIES, THE HUSBAND SURPASSES HIM [IN HIS RIGHTS] IN THAT HE HAS<a id="k46b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME,<a id="k46b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT HE IS ALSO UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF MAINTAINING AND RANSOMING HER<a id="k46b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AND TO PROVIDE FOR HER BURIAL. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN THE POOREST MAN IN ISRAEL MUST PROVIDE<a id="k46b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; NO LESS THAN TWO FLUTES AND ONE LAMENTING WOMAN.
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. 'BY MONEY'. Whence is this<a id="k46b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; deduced? &mdash; Rab Judah replied: Scripture said, Then shall she go ant for nothing without money,<a id="k46b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [which implies that] this master<a id="k46b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; receives no money<a id="k46b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but that another master does receive money;<a id="k46b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and who is he? Her father.<a id="k46b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But might it not be suggested that it<a id="k46b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; belongs to her?<a id="k46b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since<a id="k46b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; it is her father who contracts<a id="k46b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; her betrothal, as it is written in Scripture, I gave my daughter unto this man,<a id="k46b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; would she take the money!<a id="k46b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But can it not be suggested that this<a id="k46b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to a minor<a id="k46b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; who has no legal right<a id="k46b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [to act on her own behalf], but that a na'arah<a id="k46b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; who has such rights<a id="k46b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; may herself contract her betrothal, and she herself receives the money? &mdash; Scripture stated, Being in her youth in her father's house,<a id="k46b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [implying that] all the advantages of her youth belong to her father.
</p><p>
	[Consider], however, that which R. Huna said in the name of Rab: 'Whence is it deduced that a daughte handiwork belongs to her father? [From Scripture] where it is said, And if a van sell his daughter to be a maidservant,<a id="k46b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; as<a id="k46b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father'.<a id="k46b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Now what need was there,<a id="k46b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be asked, for this text when] deduction<a id="k46b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; could have been made from [the text of] 'Being in her youth in her father's house'?<a id="k46b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently [it must be admitted, must it not, that] that text was written in connection only with the annulment of vows?<a id="k46b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you suggest that we might infer this<a id="k46b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; from it,<a id="k46b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [it could be retorted that] monetary matters cannot be inferred from ritual matters.<a id="k46b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you suggest that we might infer it is from [the law of] fine,<a id="k46b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [it could be retorted, could it not, that] monetary payments cannot be inferred from fines? And should you suggest that it is might be inferred from [the law of compensation for] indignity and blemish,<a id="k46b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [it could be retorted] that indignity and blemish are different,<a id="k46b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; since [the rights] of her father [are also, are they not], involved<a id="k46b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; in it?<a id="k46b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This], however, [is the explanation]:<a id="k46b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; It is logical to conclude that when the All-Merciful excluded<a id="k46b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [another] going out,<a id="k46b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; the exclusion Was meant to be [understood in a manner] similar to the original.<a id="k46b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; But<a id="k46b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; one 'going out', surely, is not like that of the other: For<a id="k46b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of the master [the maidservant] goes entirely out of his control while in the 'going out' from the control of her father [the daughter's] transfer to the bridal chamber is still lacking?<a id="k46b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In respect of the annulment of vows, at any rate, she passes out of his control; for we have learned: In the case of a betrothed damsel<a id="k46b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; it is her father and her husband who jointly annul her vows.<a id="k46b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>
</p><p>
	DEED OR INTERCOURSE. Whence do we [deduce this]?<a id="k46b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Scripture said, And becometh another man's wife<a id="k46b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; is [from which it may be inferred that] the various forms of betrothal<a id="k46b_56"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; are to be compared to one another.<a id="k46b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SHE FINDS,
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k47a_1:" Between father and daughter."
,k47a_2:" Ex. XXI, 7."
,k47a_3:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 40b, 46b, Kid. 3b."
,k47a_4:" Lit., 'these words', a father's right to his daughter's handiwork."
,k47a_5:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k47a_6:" Lit., 'but that'."
,k47a_7:" Lit., 'surely'."
,k47a_8:" During her preparations for, and the performance of the bridal chamber ceremonial. Since, however, a father does enjoy the right it must be concluded that a daughter's handiwork does belong to her father."
,k47a_9:" A father who consigns his daughter into the bridal chamber."
,k47a_10:" When people usually rest from their work."
,k47a_11:" On which days work is forbidden. The question thus arises again: Whence is it deduced that a daughter's handiwork belongs to her father?"
,k47a_12:" To confer upon her father the right to her handiwork."
,k47a_13:" Lit., 'now'."
,k47a_14:" Obviously not."
,k47a_15:" Viz., the superfluous word vntk., to be a maidservant (Ex. XXI, 7), from which the analogy is drawn <i>supra</i>. The ordinary text deals, of course, with a minor."
,k47a_16:" In the Section dealing with the invalidation of vows."
,k47a_17:" Num. XXX. 17. 'Being in her youth' [H], sc. while she is yet a na'arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k47a_18:" Deut. XXIV, 2."
,k47a_19:" I.e., divorce."
,k47a_20:" Sc. a wife (cf. Deut. XXIV, 2: Becometh&nbsp;&hellip; wife). As a father may contract his daughter's betrothal so may he accept her divorce."
,k47a_21:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 266, n. 7."
,k47a_22:" V. l.c. n. 8."
,k47a_23:" Should she ever be taken captive."
,k47a_24:" In justification of his claim to the usufruct of his daughter's property."
,k47a_25:" The savings of the proceeds of her property."
,k47a_26:" And should her savings be insufficient he would refuse to supplement them."
,k47a_27:" Lit., 'wrote for her', as her dowry."
,k47a_28:" Detached from the ground (v. <i>infra</i>)."
,k47a_29:" Lit., 'vessels', 'chattels'."
,k47a_30:" Lit., 'which shall come'."
,k47a_31:" On betrothal."
,k47a_32:" During the period of her betrothal."
,k47a_33:" R. Nathan and the first Tanna."
,k47a_34:" I.e., her additional jointure as well as her statutory <i>kethubah</i>."
,k47a_35:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>, sc. her statutory <i>kethubah</i> only. "
}

txt:
<p>
in order [to avert] ill feeling.<a id="k47a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	TO HER HANDIWORK. Whence do we deduce this? &mdash; [From that] which R. Huna quoted in the name of Rab: Whence is it deduced that a daughter's handiwork belongs to her father? &mdash; [From Scripture] where it is stated, And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant,<a id="k47a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; as the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father.<a id="k47a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But may it not be suggested that this<a id="k47a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [applies only to] a minor whom he may sell, but the handiwork of a na'arah<a id="k47a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; whom he cannot sell belongs to herself? &mdash; It is but logical to assume that it should belong to her father; for should it be imagined that her handiwork does not belong to him [the objection could well be advanced against] the right<a id="k47a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; which the All-Merciful has conferred upon a father to consign his daughter to the bridal chamber: How could he consign her when he thereby<a id="k47a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; prevents her from doing her work?<a id="k47a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ahai demurred: Might it not be suggested that he<a id="k47a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; pays her compensation [for the time] she is taken away [from her work] or else, that he consigns her during the night,<a id="k47a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or else that he might consign her on Sabbaths<a id="k47a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or festivals?<a id="k47a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The fact], however, [is that in the case of] a minor no Scriptural text was necessary.<a id="k47a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; For since<a id="k47a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is he may even sell her was it at all necessary [to state that her handiwork belongs to him]?<a id="k47a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; If a Scriptural text<a id="k47a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; then was at all necessary [it must have been] in respect of a na'arah.
</p><p>
	TO ANNUL HER VOWS. Whence do we [deduce this]? [From Scripture] where it is written,<a id="k47a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Being in her youth in her father's house.<a id="k47a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND HE RECEIVES HER BILL OF DIVORCE. Whence is this deduced? &mdash; From Scripture where it is written, And she departeth and And becometh,<a id="k47a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'departure'<a id="k47a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; being compared to 'becoming'.<a id="k47a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BUT HE HAS NO USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME. Our Rabbis taught: A father has no usufruct<a id="k47a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; during the lifetime of his daughter.<a id="k47a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose the son of R. Judah ruled: A father is entitled to usufruct<a id="k47a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; in the lifetime of his daughter. On what principle do they differ? &mdash; The first Tanna is of the opinion that the Rabbis were well justified in allowing usufruct to a husband, since otherwise he might refrain from ransoming [his wife].<a id="k47a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, can be said<a id="k47a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of a father? That he would refrain from ransoming her? [It is certain that] he would ransom her in any case. R. Jose the son of R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that a father also might refrain from ransoming [his daughter], for he might think: She is carrying a purse<a id="k47a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; about her, let her proceed to ransom herself.<a id="k47a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	WHEN SHE MARRIES, THE HUSBAND SURPASSES HIM [IN HIS RIGHTS] IN THAT HE HAS USUFRUCT etc. Our Rabbis taught: If [a father] promised his daughter in writing<a id="k47a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; fruit,<a id="k47a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; clothes or other movable objects<a id="k47a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; that she might take<a id="k47a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; with her<a id="k47a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; from her father's house to that of her husband, and she died,<a id="k47a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; her husband does not acquire these objects. In the name of R. Nathan it was stated: The husband does acquire them. Must it be assumed that they<a id="k47a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on the same principles as those on which R. Eleazar b. Azariah and the Rabbis differed? For we learned: A woman who was widowed or divorced, either after betrothal or after marriage, is entitled to collect all<a id="k47a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [that is due to her]. R. Eleazar b. Azariah ruled: [Only a woman widowed or divorced] after her marriage recovers all [that is due to her], but if after a betrothal a virgin recovers only two hundred <i>zuz</i><a id="k47a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and a widow only one <i>maneh</i><a id="k47a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k47b_1:" And since he did not marry her she can have no claim to it. V. <i>Infra</i> 54b, 89b; B.M. 17b."
,k47b_2:" As the latter makes the woman's right to her additional jointure dependent on marriage, so also does the former make the husband's right to the dowry his wife brings from her father's house dependent on marriage. In the opinion of both betrothal entitles one only to the prescribed statutory rights."
,k47b_3:" R. Nathan."
,k47b_4:" As they deem betrothal to he as valid as marriage in respect of conferring upon a woman the right to her additional jointure as well as to her statutory <i>kethubah</i>, so does R. Nathan deem betrothal to be conferring upon a husband the right to the dowry his wife has brought him. As the additional jointure which is included in the document of the <i>kethubah</i> is acquired on betrothal by the woman, so is the dowry which is also included in the same document acquired on betrothal by the man."
,k47b_5:" R. Nathan and the first Tanna."
,k47b_6:" Whose ruling is (as stated <i>infra</i>) the accepted law."
,k47b_7:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 6."
,k47b_8:" A husband."
,k47b_9:" A wife."
,k47b_10:" That betrothal does not confer upon a woman the right of acquisition."
,k47b_11:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 271. n. 5."
,k47b_12:" A wife."
,k47b_13:" A husband."
,k47b_14:" The dowry e.g., which her father promises to her husband."
,k47b_15:" By the betrothal. Hence the ruling that, in this respect, betrothal alone confers the same rights as marriage."
,k47b_16:" Variant, 'ransom' (Sheiltoth)."
,k47b_17:" Here it means the dowry (v. <i>supra</i> n. 4) which, like the statutory <i>kethubah</i> and the additional jointure, is also entered in the <i>kethubah</i> document."
,k47b_18:" Lit., 'their (sc. the fruits') name'; the first clauses of the Baraitha cited speak only of 'handiwork' and '<i>kethubah</i>' and these, surely, provide no reason for a husband's right to usufruct."
,k47b_19:" Of her <i>melog</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) property which was not entered in the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k47b_20:" V. <i>supra</i> note 7."
,k47b_21:" The ruling 'a husband therefore&nbsp;&hellip; usufruct' seems superfluous after the statement, 'her ransom in return for usufruct'."
,k47b_22:" I. e., allow their proceeds to accumulate, and thus create a fund for his wife's ransom."
,k47b_23:" Lit., 'if so'; were he to consume the fruit or to spend their proceeds."
,k47b_24:" That the husband shall enjoy usufruct and that in return for this he shall assume the obligation of ransoming his wife."
,k47b_25:" To cover the full amount of the ransom. Lit., 'that they he not full'."
,k47b_26:" Since, in accordance with the ordinance, he enjoyed usufruct and undertook the obligation of ransom. (V. <i>supra</i> note 14)."
,k47b_27:" In the Baraitha, thus: Maintenance in return for usufruct and ransom in return for handiwork. A wife would consequently be prevented from retaining her handiwork even if she declined maintenance."
,k47b_28:" The Rabbis."
,k47b_29:" Maintenance and handiwork are both part of a person's daily routine."
,k47b_30:" Usufruct for ransom. It is rare that a wife should own <i>melog</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) property or that she should be carried away as a captive. Both usufruct and ransom are consequently uncommon."
,k47b_31:" Of a wife by her husband."
,k47b_32:" E.V. Her food, [H] ([H] with pronom suffix; v. <i>infra</i> n. 8) Ex. XXI. 10."
,k47b_33:" Lit., 'these'."
,k47b_34:" [H] E. V. flesh."
,k47b_35:" Micah III, 3."
,k47b_36:" Ex. XXI. 10."
,k47b_37:" [H], R.V., Her duty of marriage; A.J.V., Her conjugal rights, Ex. XXI, 10. [H] (rt. [H] in Piel, 'to afflict'; v. <i>infra</i> nn. 12 and 14)."
,k47b_38:" [H] (rt. [H] v. <i>supra</i> n. 11)."
,k47b_39:" Cf. <i>infra</i> 61b."
,k47b_40:" [H], (rt. [H])."
,k47b_41:" Gen. XXXI, 50."
,k47b_42:" [H]"
,k47b_43:" Lev. XVIII, 6."
,k47b_44:" [H] (rt. [H])."
,k47b_45:" Deut. VIII, 3. "
}

txt:
<p>
for the man wrote [the additional jointure] for her with the sole object of marrying her.<a id="k47b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [Must it then be assumed] that he who ruled that 'her husband does not acquire' [upholds the same principle] as R. Eleazar b. Azariah<a id="k47b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; while he<a id="k47b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; who ruled that 'the husband does acquire' [upholds the same principle] as the Rabbis?<a id="k47b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; all<a id="k47b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [may, in fact, hold the same view] as R. Eleazar b. Azariah.<a id="k47b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [For] he who ruled, 'her husband does not acquire', [is obviously] in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah.<a id="k47b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; And as to him<a id="k47b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; who ruled, 'the husband does acquire' [it may be explained that] only [in respect of undertakings] from him<a id="k47b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; towards her<a id="k47b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; did R. Eleazar b. Azariah maintain his view,<a id="k47b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [for the reason that] 'the man wrote [the additional jointure] for her with the sole object of marrying her',<a id="k47b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but [in respect of undertakings] from her<a id="k47b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; towards him<a id="k47b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; even R. Eleazar b. Azariah may admit [that betrothal has the same force as marriage] since [undertakings of such a nature]<a id="k47b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; are due to [a desire for] matrimonial association, and such association, surely, had taken place.<a id="k47b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HE IS ALSO UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF MAINTAINING HER etc. Our Rabbis taught: Maintenance was provided for a wife in return for her handiwork, and her burial<a id="k47b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in return for her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k47b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; A husband is, therefore, entitled to usufruct. 'Usufruct'! Who mentioned it?<a id="k47b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A clause is missing, and this is the proper reading: Maintenance was provided for a wife in return for her handiwork, her ransom In return for usufruct,<a id="k47b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and her burial in return for her <i>kethubah</i>;<a id="k47b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; a husband, therefore, is entitled to usufruct.<a id="k47b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What [was the need for] 'therefore'?<a id="k47b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It might have been presumed [that a husband] must not consume the fruits<a id="k47b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but should rather leave them,<a id="k47b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; since, otherwise,<a id="k47b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he might refrain from ransoming her, hence we were informed that that [course]<a id="k47b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; was preferable, for sometimes [the proceeds of the fruit] might not suffice<a id="k47b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and he<a id="k47b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; would have to ransom her at his own expense.
</p><p>
	Might I not transpose [the sequence]?<a id="k47b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: They<a id="k47b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; ordained the common for the common<a id="k47b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and the uncommon for the uncommon.<a id="k47b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Raba: The following Tanna is of the opinion that maintenance<a id="k47b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; is a Pentateuchal duty. For it was taught: She'erah<a id="k47b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to<a id="k47b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; maintenance, for so it is said in Scripture, Who also eat the she'er<a id="k47b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; of my peaple;<a id="k47b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Her raiment<a id="k47b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [is to be understood] according to its ordinary meaning; 'Onatha<a id="k47b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to the time for conjugal duty<a id="k47b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; prescribed in the Torah,<a id="k47b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; for so it is said in Scripture, If than shalt afflict<a id="k47b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; my daughters.<a id="k47b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar said: 'She'erah' refers to the prescribed time for conjugal duty,<a id="k47b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; for so it is said in Scripture, None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin<a id="k47b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; to him to uncover their nakedness;<a id="k47b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Her raiment' [is to be taken] according to its literal meaning; 'Onatha refers to maintenance, for so it is said in Scripture, And he afflicted thee,<a id="k47b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; and suffered thee to hunger.<a id="k47b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k48a_1:" [H] (Ex. XXI, 10), 'her age, her raiment'. [H] = flesh (cf. <i>supra</i> note 8), hence 'body', 'age'."
,k48a_2:" Lit., 'to her'."
,k48a_3:" [H] (Ex. XXI, 10), 'her raiment and her time' [H] = 'time', 'season'."
,k48a_4:" Lit., 'her season'."
,k48a_5:" Which might be too warm for her in the hot weather."
,k48a_6:" Being worn thin they would not provide sufficient protection from cold."
,k48a_7:" Lit., 'in the days of the rains'."
,k48a_8:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 273, n. 6."
,k48a_9:" Lit., 'nearness of flesh'."
,k48a_10:" Since the ruling is attributed to R. Judah."
,k48a_11:" Two flutes and one lamenting woman."
,k48a_12:" Lit. 'that it is her (sc. her family's) custom'."
,k48a_13:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 8 mutatis mutandis."
,k48a_14:" A wife."
,k48a_15:" Her husband."
,k48a_16:" I.e., enjoys his advantages but does not suffer his disadvantages."
,k48a_17:" As in the instance dealt with <i>infra</i> 61a."
,k48a_18:" Lit., 'go down into'."
,k48a_19:" This is explained <i>infra</i>."
,k48a_20:" The case dealt with by R. Huna."
,k48a_21:" This is explained <i>infra</i>."
,k48a_22:" <i>Infra</i> 107a."
,k48a_23:" From his home to a foreign country."
,k48a_24:" From society. sc. becomes insane."
,k48a_25:" In the former case the man could have left instructions, if he were minded to do so, that his wife and family should be provided for. Since, however, he left no such instructions, it is obvious that he had no intention of providing for them. Hence the ruling that his wife, whom he is under a legal obligation to maintain, (her claim being secured on his estate in accordance with the terms of her <i>kethubah</i>) must be provided for by the <i>Beth din</i> out of his estate; not however, his sons and daughters who have no legal claim upon their father's estate. Where, however, a man becomes insane it may well be assumed that it was his wish that both his wife and family shall be properly provided for out of his estate."
,k48a_26:" Lit., 'this'."
,k48a_27:" Of the Baraitha that 'anything else' was not to be provided for."
,k48a_28:" Since the court which has no right to provide from a man's estate for his own wife's personal enjoyments would have much less power to exact from that estate for charity."
,k48a_29:" Lit., 'go down into'."
,k48a_30:" Why should she suffer indignity on account of his lower status?"
,k48a_31:" R. Huna."
,k48a_32:" While in a dying condition. The instructions of a dying man have the force of a legally written document."
,k48a_33:" Having survived her husband and collected her <i>kethubah</i> a wife has no further claim upon his estate which is consequently inherited by his sons."
,k48a_34:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k48a_35:" And they, of course, are under no obligation to bury the widow."
,k48a_36:" But at the public cost."
,k48a_37:" Lit., 'all from him'."
,k48a_38:" A na'arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). This Mishnah is a continuation of the previous one, <i>supra</i> 46b."
,k48a_39:" [H], lit., 'for ever', 'always'."
,k48a_40:" Even after her betrothal. He is entitled to all his privileges; and,' if she is the daughter of an Israelite, although betrothed to a priest, <i>terumah</i> is forbidden to her.>"
}

txt:
<p>
R. Eliezer b. Jacob interpreted: [The expressions] She'erah kesutha,<a id="k48a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [imply]: Provide her with raiment according to her age, viz. that a man shall not provide his old wife<a id="k48a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [with the raiment] of a young one nor his young wife with that of an old one. [The expressions], Kesutha we- 'Onatha<a id="k48a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [imply.] Provide her with raiment according to the season of the year,<a id="k48a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; viz. that he shall not give her new raiment<a id="k48a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; in the summer nor worn out raiment<a id="k48a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; in the winter.<a id="k48a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph learnt: Her flesh<a id="k48a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; implies close bodily contact,<a id="k48a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; viz, that he must not treat her in the manner of the Persians who perform their conjugal duties in their clothes. This provides support for [a ruling of] R. Huna who laid down that a husband who said, 'I will not [perform conjugal duties] unless she wears her clothes and I mine', must divorce her and give her also her <i>kethubah</i>. 
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN THE POOREST MAN IN ISRAEL etc. This<a id="k48a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; then implies that the first Tanna is of the opinion that these<a id="k48a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; are not [necessary]. But how is one to imagine [the case]? If these<a id="k48a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; were required by the woman's status,<a id="k48a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; what [it may be objected could be] the reason of the first Tanna who ruled [that these<a id="k48a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; were] not [required]? And if these<a id="k48a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; were not required by the woman's status,<a id="k48a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; what [it may be objected could be] the reason of R. Judah? &mdash; [The ruling was] necessary only [in a case], for instance, where these were demanded by his status but not by hers. The first Tanna is of the opinion that the principle that she<a id="k48a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; rises with him<a id="k48a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but does not go down with him<a id="k48a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is applied only during her lifetime<a id="k48a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but not after her death, while R. Judah maintains [that the principle applies] even after her death. R. Hisda laid down in the name of Mar 'Ukba that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah. 
</p><p>
	R. Hisda further stated in the name of Mar 'Ukba: If a man became insane <i>Beth din</i> take possession<a id="k48a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; of his estate and provide food and clothing for his wife, sons and daughters, and for anything else.<a id="k48a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Why should this<a id="k48a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; be different from that concerning which it was taught: If a man went to a country beyond the sea and his wife claimed maintenance, <i>Beth din</i> take possession of<a id="k48a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; his estate and provide food and clothing for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters or for anything else?<a id="k48a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; The other replied: Do you not draw a distinction between one who departs<a id="k48a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; deliberately and one who departs<a id="k48a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; without knowing it?<a id="k48a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What [is meant by] 'anything else'? &mdash; R. Hisda replied: Cosmetics were meant,<a id="k48a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph explained: Charity. According to him who replied, 'Cosmetics', the ruling<a id="k48a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; would apply with even greater force to charity.<a id="k48a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; He, however, who explained, 'charity' [restricts his ruling<a id="k48a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; to this alone] but cosmetics [he maintains] must he given to her, for [her husband] would not be pleased that she shall lose her comeliness. 
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abin stated in the name of R. Huna: If a man went to a country beyond the sea, and his wife died, <i>Beth din</i> take possession<a id="k48a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; of his estate and bury her in a manner befitting the dignity of his status. [You say] 'In a manner befitting the dignity of his status', and not that of her status!<a id="k48a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read, In a manner befitting his status also; and it is this that he<a id="k48a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; informs us: She rises with him [in his dignity] but does not go down with him [to a lower status] even after her death. 
</p><p>
	R. Mattena ruled: A man<a id="k48a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; who gave instructions that when [his wife] died she shall not be buried at the expense of his estate must be obeyed.<a id="k48a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, is the reason [for obeying the man] when he has left instructions? Obviously because the estate falls to the orphans;<a id="k48a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; but the estate falls to the orphans, does it not, even if he left no instructions?<a id="k48a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The proper reading], however, is: A man<a id="k48a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; who gave instructions that when he dies be shall not be buried at the expense of his estate<a id="k48a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; is not to be obeyed, for it is not within his power<a id="k48a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; to enrich his sons and throw himself upon the public.
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. SHE<a id="k48a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; REMAINS<a id="k48a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER FATHER<a id="k48a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; UNTIL SHE ENTERS
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k48b_1:" <i>Var. lec</i>. 'to the bridal chamber' (v. Tosaf. 48a, s.v. [H])."
,k48b_2:" Huppah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>); cf. Rashi, a.l. and cf. <i>supra</i> n. 10."
,k48b_3:" Who were sent to bring her from her father's house to that of her husband."
,k48b_4:" Lit., 'behold she is'."
,k48b_5:" To her husband's house."
,k48b_6:" Neither they nor her father who sent them accompanying her to the house of her husband."
,k48b_7:" [H], lit., 'for ever', 'always'. The omission of [H] would not in any way alter the actual ruling except the wording which would then read, 'She is under' etc. Why then was an apparently superfluous word inserted?"
,k48b_8:" Lit., 'first'."
,k48b_9:" One of twelve months for a virgin and of thirty days for a widow (from the date their intended husbands claimed them) in which to prepare their marriage outfits."
,k48b_10:" Lit., 'the time arrived'."
,k48b_11:" Through their future husbands' delay or neglect."
,k48b_12:" Lit., 'eat of his'."
,k48b_13:" Though they are daughters of Israelites."
,k48b_14:" <i>Infra</i> 57a."
,k48b_15:" V. note I."
,k48b_16:" Sc. despite the expiry of the prescribed period a daughter REMAINS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER FATHER UNTIL etc. and is consequently forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i> (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 276, n. 9)."
,k48b_17:" Sc. the man obtains all the privileges to which a husband is entitled from the moment the bride enters the bridal chamber (e.g., the right to her handiwork, heirship)."
,k48b_18:" The woman, if she is the daughter of an Israelite, is forbidden to eat it though the man is a priest (v. <i>infra</i> 57b)."
,k48b_19:" And until then she is forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i> (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 276, n. 9). How then could R. Assi maintain that <i>terumah</i> is permitted to her?"
,k48b_20:" His disciple R. Huna and his son Hiyya."
,k48b_21:" [H], lit., 'reverse'."
,k48b_22:" Sc. R. Assi. MS.M., T."
,k48b_23:" I.e., if she died on the way between her father's house and that of her husband, her dowry (given to her by her father) is inherited by her husband although he is not entitled to his other rights until her entrance into the bridal chamber."
,k48b_24:" This is explained anon."
,k48b_25:" Viz., the dowry her father gave her which forms one of the entries in her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k48b_26:" V. p. 277 n. 17"
,k48b_27:" Lit., 'to say'."
,k48b_28:" If her first husband died while she was on the way with his agents."
,k48b_29:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The amount prescribed for a widow. A virgin is entitled to two hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k48b_30:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 277. n. 12 mutatis mutandis."
,k48b_31:" Her husband."
,k48b_32:" With no matrimonial intention."
,k48b_33:" I.e., the dowry her father gave her."
,k48b_34:" Her husband."
,k48b_35:" I.e., the objects specifically assigned to her as dowry were still in her father's house."
,k48b_36:" That delivery to the husband's agents has the force of a marriage."
,k48b_37:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 277, n. 17."
,k48b_38:" Tosef. Keth. IV."
,k48b_39:" Lit., 'all of them', those (with the exception of Samuel) whose rulings differ from this Baraitha."
,k48b_40:" The Baraitha last mentioned."
,k48b_41:" In the first and second clauses."
,k48b_42:" Her husband."
,k48b_43:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 276, n. 7."
,k48b_44:" Prior to her entry into the bridal chamber."
,k48b_45:" Lit., 'behold this'."
,k48b_46:" Like that of a married woman; not stoning which is the penalty of one betrothed."
,k48b_47:" In prescribing the penalty of stoning."
,k48b_48:" Deut. XXII, 21."
,k48b_49:" What proof is there that one who had not even entered the bridal chamber is also excluded?"
,k48b_50:" Prior to marriage"
,k48b_51:" I.e., is deduced from a specific expression."
,k48b_52:" Deut. XXII, 23."
,k48b_53:" V. Sanh. 66b."
,k48b_54:" Betrothed but not actually married'."
,k48b_55:" Lit., 'but not?'"
,k48b_56:" Since this text excluded such a case from the penalty of stoning no other text is required for the same purpose. Deut. XXII, 21, is consequently free for the deduction made by R. Ammi.</p><p>"
}

txt:
<p>
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND<a id="k48b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [BY GOING INTO THE BRIDAL CHAMBER]<a id="k48b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AT MARRIAGE. IF HER FATHER DELIVERED HER TO THE AGENTS OF THE HUSBAND<a id="k48b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE PASSES<a id="k48b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND. IF HER FATHER WENT WITH HER HUSBAND'S AGENTS<a id="k48b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; OR IF THE FATHER'S AGENTS WENT WITH THE HUSBAND'S AGENTS<a id="k48b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE REMAINS<a id="k48b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER FATHER. IF HER FATHER'S AGENTS DELIVERED HER TO HER HUSBAND'S AGENTS<a id="k48b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE PASSES<a id="k48b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND.
<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What [is the purport of] REMAINS?<a id="k48b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; To exclude [the ruling] of an earlier<a id="k48b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Mishnah where we learned: If the respective periods<a id="k48b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; expired<a id="k48b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and they were not married<a id="k48b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; they are entitled to maintenance out of the man's estate<a id="k48b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and [if he is a priest]<a id="k48b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; may also eat <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k48b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore 'REMAINS'<a id="k48b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; was used.<a id="k48b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HER FATHER DELIVERED HER TO THE AGENTS OF THE HUSBAND SHE PASSES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND etc. Rab ruled: Her delivery [is regarded as entry into the bridal chamber] in all respects<a id="k48b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; except that of <i>terumah</i>;<a id="k48b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Assi ruled in respect of <i>terumah</i> also.
</p><p>
	R. Huna, (or as some Say, Hiyya b. Rab,) raised an objection against R. Assi: She remains<a id="k48b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; under the authority of her father until she enters the bridal chamber.<a id="k48b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Did I not tell you', said Rab to them,<a id="k48b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'that you should not be guided by an ambiguous statement?<a id="k48b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; He<a id="k48b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; can answer you that "her delivery" is regarded as her entry into the bridal chamber'.
</p><p>
	Samuel, however, ruled: [Her delivery has the force of entry into the bridal chamber only in respect] of her inheritance.<a id="k48b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Resh Lakish ruled: [Only in respect] of her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k48b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by 'her kethubah'? [If it means] that should [the woman] die he inherits it,<a id="k48b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [then this ruling is, is it not,] the same as that of Samuel?<a id="k48b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina replied: The meaning is<a id="k48b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; that her [statutory] <i>kethubah</i> from a second husband<a id="k48b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; is only a <i>maneh</i>.<a id="k48b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Both R. Johanan and R. Hanina ruled: Her delivery [is regarded as entry into the bridal chamber] in all respects. even that of <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k48b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: If the father went with the agents of the husband, or if the agents of the father went with the agents of the husband, or if she had a court-yard on the way, and she entered it with him<a id="k48b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; to rest there for the night,<a id="k48b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; her father inherits from her if she died, although her <i>kethubah</i><a id="k48b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; is already in the house of her husband. If, however, her father delivered her to her husband's agents, or if her father's agents delivered her to her husband's agents, or he<a id="k48b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; had a court-yard on the way, and she entered it with him with an intention to matrimony, her husband is her heir if she died, although her <i>kethubah</i><a id="k48b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; was still in her father's house.<a id="k48b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; This ruling<a id="k48b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only in respect of her inheritance<a id="k48b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect of <i>terumah</i> [the law is that] no woman is allowed to eat <i>terumah</i> until she enters the bridal chamber.<a id="k48b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; [Does not this represent] a refutation of all?<a id="k48b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; This is indeed a refutation.
</p><p>
	[But] is not this,<a id="k48b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; however, self-contradictory? You said. 'She entered it with him to rest for the night'. The reason [why such an act is not regarded as entry into the bridal chamber is] because [the entrance was made specifically for the purpose of] resting for the night. Had it, however, been made with no specified intention [it would be deemed to have been made] with an intention to matrimony. Read, however, the final clause: 'She entered it with him with an intention to matrimony', from which it follows, does it not, that if the entrance was made with no specified intention [it would be deemed to have been made just] in order to rest there for the night? &mdash; R. Ashi replied: Both entrances mentioned<a id="k48b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; are such as were made with no specified intention, but any unspecified [entrance into] a court-yard of hers [is presumed to have been made] in order to rest there for the night while any unspecified [entrance into] a court-yard of his<a id="k48b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; [is presumed to have been made] with an intention to matrimony.
</p><p>
	A Tanna taught: If a father delivered [his daughter]<a id="k48b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; to the agents of her husband and she played the harlot<a id="k48b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; her penalty is that<a id="k48b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; of strangulation.<a id="k48b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; Whence is this ruling deduced? &mdash; R. Ammi b. Hama replied: Scripture stated,<a id="k48b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; To play the harlot in her father's house,<a id="k48b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; thus excluding one whom the father had delivered to the agents of the husband.
</p><p>
	Might it not be suggested that this<a id="k48b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; excludes one who entered her bridal chamber but with whom no cohabitation had taken place?<a id="k48b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba replied: Ammi told me [that a woman<a id="k48b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; who entered her] bridal chamber was explicitly<a id="k48b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; mentioned in Scripture: If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man;<a id="k48b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; 'a damsel' but not a woman who is adolescent, 'a virgin' 'but not a woman with whom intercourse took place, 'betrathed' but not one married.<a id="k48b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; Now what [is meant by] 'one married'? If it be suggested: One actually married, [it can be objected that such a deduction]<a id="k48b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; would be practically the same as that of 'a virgin but not one with whom intercourse took place'. Consequently it must be concluded<a id="k48b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; [that by 'married' was meant one] who entered into the bridal chamber but with whom no intercourse took place.<a id="k48b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k49a_1:" Whom HER FATHER DELIVERED TO THE AGENTS OF THE HUSBAND."
,k49a_2:" Before she reached her husband's house."
,k49a_3:" Since she is again 'in her father's house' her penalty might again be changed from strangulation (the penalty for a married woman) to stoning (the penalty for one betrothed who is in her father's house, (Deut. XXII, 21). This does not exactly raise a difficulty against our Mishnah, but is an attempt merely at elucidating the law (Rashi)."
,k49a_4:" Num. XXX, 10."
,k49a_5:" Since she was once married. A father's control over his daughter ceases with her marriage."
,k49a_6:" Being now a widow or a divorcee. Now since neither father nor husband may annul her vows it is self-evident that her vows 'stand against her'. What need then was there for the text of Num. XXX, 10."
,k49a_7:" Lit., 'behold'."
,k49a_8:" To her husband's house."
,k49a_9:" And so returned to her parental home."
,k49a_10:" Lit., 'how I read about her'."
,k49a_11:" Because, not having reached her husband's house, she has not passed entirely out of her father's control. Her father should consequently be entitled to annul her vows."
,k49a_12:" Who is now dead or divorced. Her vows consequently, like those of any other widow or divorcee, could no longer be annulled."
,k49a_13:" Lit., 'but'."
,k49a_14:" As, for instance, where she was delivered to the husband's agents."
,k49a_15:" Yeb. 87a. As in respect of vows the woman is no longer regarded as being 'in her father's house' so also in respect of her penalties."
,k49a_16:" Sc. a Mishnah which supports the ruling of the Baraitha <i>supra</i> 48b: 'If a father delivered&nbsp;&hellip; her penalty is that of strangulation'."
,k49a_17:" Sc. the penalties prescribed in Deut. XXII, 24ff."
,k49a_18:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k49a_19:" Sanh. 66b."
,k49a_20:" Lit., 'and not'."
,k49a_21:" Before intercourse Lad taken Place (cf. <i>supra</i> 48b 3d fit.)."
,k49a_22:" Lit., 'not, to exclude?'"
,k49a_23:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p, 280, notes 4 and 16."
,k49a_24:" V. <i>supra</i> p. note 1."
,k49a_25:" Lit., 'the wife of a man'."
,k49a_26:" Sc. the woman. So according to MS.M. (v. <i>infra</i> n. 13)."
,k49a_27:" So MS.M. Cur. edd. insert 'for marriage'."
,k49a_28:" So MS.M., [H] Cur. edd. [H]."
,k49a_29:" Since even 'bridal chamber' was not mentioned."
,k49a_30:" Lit., 'in the world'; even mere delivery to the husband's agents."
,k49a_31:" During his lifetime. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k49a_32:" On the formula of the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k49a_33:" On the day when he was appointed president of the College (Rashi, cf. Ber. 27b)."
,k49a_34:" Or Jamnia. The [H] was either the name of the school, so called because the students 'sat in rows' like 'vines in a vineyard' (Rashi), or an actual vineyard in which the scholars met (Krauss). The school of Jabneh was established by R. Johanan b. Zakkai during the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian. Cf. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 549, n. 4."
,k49a_35:" A formula to that effect must be entered in a <i>kethubah</i>, v. Mishnah <i>infra</i> 52b."
,k49a_36:" As DAUGHTER only was mentioned."
,k49a_37:" Lit., 'there is not'."
,k49a_38:" Lit., 'there is'."
,k49a_39:" Though after a certain age there is no legal obligation."
,k49a_40:" The bracketed words are the Talmudic comment on this teaching. (V. Rashb. s.v. [H] B.B. 141a)."
,k49a_41:" In their search for a livelihood, cf. n. 6."
,k49a_42:" In accordance with the terms of their mother's <i>kethubah</i>."
,k49a_43:" Lit., 'these and these are not'"
,k49a_44:" Cf. Tosef. Keth. IV and BB. 141a."
,k49a_45:" While our Mishnah implies a legal obligation."
,k49a_46:" [H]. This may be omitted with MS.M."
,k49a_47:" Lit., 'there is not."
,k49a_48:" In his statement in our Mishnah."
,k49a_49:" Lit., 'and that'."
,k49a_50:" And not 'son'. Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 282, n. 2 and text.>"
}

txt:
<p>
But might not one suggest that if she<a id="k49a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; returned<a id="k49a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; to her parental home she resumes her former status?<a id="k49a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba replied: A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael has long ago settled this difficulty. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: What need was there for Scripture to state, But the vow of a widow, or of her that is divorced, even everything wherewith she bath bound her soul, shall stand against her?<a id="k49a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Is she not free from the authority of her father<a id="k49a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and also from that of her husband?<a id="k49a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [The fact], however, is that where<a id="k49a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; her father had delivered her to the agents of her husband, or where the agents of her father had delivered her to the agents of her husband and, on the way,<a id="k49a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; she became a widow or was divorced<a id="k49a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [one would not know] whether she was to be described as of<a id="k49a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the house of her father<a id="k49a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or as of the house of her husband;<a id="k49a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; hence the need for the text<a id="k49a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; to tell you that as soon as she has left her father's authority,<a id="k49a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; even if only for a short while, he may no longer annul her vows.<a id="k49a_15"><sup>15</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	Said R. Papa: We also learned [a similar ruling]:<a id="k49a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; A man who has intercourse with a betrothed girl incurs no penalties<a id="k49a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; unless she is a na'arah,<a id="k49a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; a virgin, betrothed, and in her father's house.<a id="k49a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Now one can well see that 'na'arah' excludes<a id="k49a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; one who is adolescent, 'virgin' excludes<a id="k49a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; one with whom a man has had intercourse, and 'betrothed' excludes one who married [by entry into the bridal chamber].<a id="k49a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; What, [however, could the expression] 'in her father's house' exclude? Obviously this:<a id="k49a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [The case where] her father delivered her to the agents of the husband.<a id="k49a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We also learned [a similar ruling]:<a id="k49a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Should one have intercourse with a 'married woman'<a id="k49a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; the latter,<a id="k49a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; provided she entered under the authority of her husband,<a id="k49a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; although no intercourse had taken place, is to he punished by strangulation.<a id="k49a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 'She entered under the authority of her husband' [implies]<a id="k49a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; in any form whatever.<a id="k49a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; This is conclusive proof.
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A FATHER<a id="k49a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER. THIS EXPOSITION<a id="k49a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS MADE BY R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH<a id="k49a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SAGES IN THE VINEYARD OF JABNEH:<a id="k49a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [SINCE IT WAS ENACTED THAT] THE SONS SHALL BE HEIRS [TO THEIR MOTHER'S KETHUBAH]<a id="k49a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE DAUGHTERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED [OUT OF THEIR FATHER'S ESTATE,<a id="k49a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; THE TWO CASES MAY BE COMPARED:] AS THE SONS CANNOT BE HEIRS EXCEPT AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER, SO THE DAUGHTERS CANNOT CLAIM MAINTENANCE EXCEPT AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER.
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [Since it has been said that] he is UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER Only, it follows<a id="k49a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; that he is under an obligation to maintain his son, [and in the case of] his daughter also, since he is only exempt from<a id="k49a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; legal OBLIGATION he is, obviously, still subject<a id="k49a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; to a moral duty; who, [then, it may be asked, is the author] of our Mishnah? [Is it] neither R. Meir nor R. Judah nor R. Johanan b. Beroka? For it was taught: It is a moral duty<a id="k49a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; to feed one's daughters, and much more so ones sons, (since the latter are engaged in the study of the Torah);<a id="k49a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: It is a moral duty to feed ones sons, and much more so one's daughters, (in order [to prevent their] degradation).<a id="k49a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan b. Beroka ruled: It is a legal obligation to feed one's daughters<a id="k49a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; after their father's death; but during the lifetime of their father neither sons nor daughters need be<a id="k49a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; fed.<a id="k49a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Now who [could be the author of] our Mishnah? If R. Meir, he, surely, [it may be objected] ruled that [the maintenance of] sons [was only] a moral duty.<a id="k49a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; If R. Judah, he, surely ruled that also<a id="k49a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [the maintenance of] sons [was only] a moral duty.<a id="k49a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; And if R. Johanan b. Beroka [should be suggested, the objection would be: Is not his opinion that] one is not even subject to<a id="k49a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; a moral duty?<a id="k49a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you wish I might say [that the author is] R. Meir; If you wish I might Say: R. Judah; and if you prefer I might Say: R. Johanan b. Beroka. 'If you wish I might say [that the author is] R. Meir', and it is this that he meant:<a id="k49a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; A FATHER IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER, and the same law applies to his son. [Maintenance], however, is a moral duty in the case of his daughter and, much more so, in the case of his sons; and the reason why<a id="k49a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS DAUGHTER was mentioned<a id="k49a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; was to teach us this:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k49b_1:" Who is not engaged in the study of the Torah."
,k49b_2:" Had 'son' been mentioned instead of DAUGHTER it might have been assumed that the maintenance of a daughter is not even a moral duty."
,k49b_3:" MS.M., 'and the same law applies to'."
,k49b_4:" Since it is easier for a man to earn his livelihood."
,k49b_5:" Lit., 'there is not'."
,k49b_6:" Lit., 'and that is the law'."
,k49b_7:" In fact, however, there is neither legal obligation nor moral duty."
,k49b_8:" Variant, 'R. Jose' (Alfasi and Rosh)."
,k49b_9:" Usha was a town in Galilee, in the vicinity of Sepphoris and Shefar'am, where the Sanhedrin met after it left Jabneh (Jamnia). It was also the place where, after the wars of Bar Cochba, on the cessation of the religious persecutions which characterised the Hadrianic reign in the middle of the second century, an important Rabbinical synod was held. Cf. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 139, n. 1; p. 141, n. 4 and p. 207, n. 3. [On the Synod of Usha v. J.E, XI, 645ff.]."
,k49b_10:" Lit., 'small', under age of puberty (Rashi)."
,k49b_11:" With the case of a father who refused to maintain his young children."
,k49b_12:" [H] (Heb. [H]) 'A bird of solitary habits' (Jast.); 'dragon' or 'jackal' (Rashi). Cf. the rendering of [H] in Jer. IX, 10 by A.V. and R.V. respectively."
,k49b_13:" Neglecting them."
,k49b_14:" From which observation it follows that a judge can only censure a heartless father but has no power to compel him to provide for the maintenance of his children."
,k49b_15:" [H] v. Krauss, TA, I, 447."
,k49b_16:" An improvised platform."
,k49b_17:" [H], 'him', sc. the father."
,k49b_18:" Lit., 'asks'."
,k49b_19:" [H], sc. the father. According to the second interpretation, (<i>supra</i> note 8) the expression, as elsewhere, may refer to the speaker himself."
,k49b_20:" V. <i>supra</i> note 5,"
,k49b_21:" Ps. CXLVII, 9."
,k49b_22:" Presumably for food; which shews that the parent neglects them."
,k49b_23:" Lit., 'that', the text implying neglect of the young ravens."
,k49b_24:" Sc. very young ones. These are disliked by their parents (Rashi)."
,k49b_25:" Rab Judah's statement that ravens do care for their young."
,k49b_26:" Older birds. For such the parents do care."
,k49b_27:" Who refused to maintain his young children."
,k49b_28:" V. <i>supra</i> note 5."
,k49b_29:" That a father cannot legally be compelled to maintain his children."
,k49b_30:" To maintain his children."
,k49b_31:" Lit., 'like that of'."
,k49b_32:" Who was a wealthy man."
,k49b_33:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k49b_34:" How much more then may compulsion be used against a wealthy father who refuses to provide for his own children."
,k49b_35:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 183, n. 12."
,k49b_36:" Though the sons are now the legal owners of the estate."
,k49b_37:" By virtue of the enactment of Usha."
,k49b_38:" Lit., 'greater than this did they say'."
,k49b_39:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k49b_40:" In accordance with his undertakings in her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k49b_41:" And the estate was transferred into her husband's ownership."
,k49b_42:" And her possessions were inherited by her husband who is her heir."
,k49b_43:" So in the parallel passage. B.B. 193a. Cur. edd 'Rabbi'."
,k49b_44:" Lit., 'they said'."
,k49b_45:" B.B. 193a."
,k49b_46:" That despite the assignment, maintenance may be drawn from the estate."
,k49b_47:" Who made the assignment."
,k49b_48:" The case of the widow spoken of in Rabin's letter."
,k49b_49:" Lit., 'who may take the trouble'. Her husband being dead she would have been helpless without the allowance for her maintenance."
,k49b_50:" And consequently should not be allowed to draw upon the estate he assigned to his sons."
,k49b_51:" That of R. Elai."
,k49b_52:" R. Jonathan. "
}

txt:
<p>
That even in the case of his daughter<a id="k49b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he is only exempt from a legal obligation but is nevertheless subject to a moral duty.<a id="k49b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If you wish I might say: R. Judah'; and it is this that he meant: A FATHER is UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER, and much more so<a id="k49b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; his son.<a id="k49b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; It is, however, a moral duty [to maintain] one's son and, much more so, ones daughters; and the only reason why HIS DAUGHTER was mentioned Was to teach us this: That even [the maintenance of] one's daughter is no<a id="k49b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; legal obligation. 'And if you prefer I might say: R. Johanan b. Beroka', and what Was meant is this: HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN HIS DAUGHTER, and the same law applies to his son; and this, furthermore, means<a id="k49b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; that [such maintenance] is not even<a id="k49b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; a moral duty; only because [the maintenance of daughters] after their father's death is a legal obligation, the expression, HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION, was used here also.<a id="k49b_7"><sup>7</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	R. Elai stated in the name of Resh Lakish who had it from R. Judah<a id="k49b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; b. Hanina: At Usha<a id="k49b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; it was ordained that a man must maintain his sons and daughters while they are young.<a id="k49b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The question was raised: Is the law in agreement with his statement or not? &mdash; Come and hear: When people came before Rab Judah,<a id="k49b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; he used to tell them, 'A Yarod<a id="k49b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; bears progeny and<a id="k49b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; throws them upon [the tender mercies of] the townspeople'.<a id="k49b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When people came before R. Hisda,<a id="k49b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he used to tell them, 'Turn a mortar<a id="k49b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; for him upside down,<a id="k49b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in public and let one<a id="k49b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; stand [on it] and say: The raven cares<a id="k49b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; for its young but that man<a id="k49b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; does not care for his children'.<a id="k49b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But does a raven care<a id="k49b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; for its young? Is it not written in Scripture,<a id="k49b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; To the young ravens which cry?<a id="k49b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is no difficulty. The latter<a id="k49b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to white ravens<a id="k49b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and the former<a id="k49b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; to black ones.<a id="k49b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	When a man<a id="k49b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; came before Raba he used to tell him, 'Will it please you that your children should be maintained from the charity funds?'<a id="k49b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	This ruling,<a id="k49b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; however, has been laid down only for one who is not a wealthy man, but if the man is wealthy he may be compelled<a id="k49b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; even against his wish; as was the case with<a id="k49b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba who used compulsion against R. Nathan b. Ammi<a id="k49b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and extracted front him four hundred <i>zuz</i><a id="k49b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; for charity.<a id="k49b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	R. Elai stated in the name of Resh Lakish: It was enacted at Usha<a id="k49b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; that if a man assigned all his estate to his sons in writing, he and his wife<a id="k49b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; may nevertheless<a id="k49b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; be maintained out of it. R. Zera, or as some say, R. Samuel b. Nahmani, demurred: Since the Rabbis went so far as to rule<a id="k49b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; that [in the case that follows] a widow is maintained out of her husband's estate, was there any necessity [to state that such maintenance is allowed to] the man himself and his wife? For Rabin had sent in his letter:<a id="k49b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man died and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is to receive her maintenance from his estate?<a id="k49b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; If the daughter married,<a id="k49b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; his widow is still to receive her maintenance from his estate. If the daughter died?<a id="k49b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab<a id="k49b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; Judah the son of the sister of R. Jose b. Hanina said: I had such a case, and it was decided<a id="k49b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; that his widow was to receive her maintenance from his estate.<a id="k49b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; [In view of this ruling we ask: Was it] necessary [to give a similar ruling<a id="k49b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of] the man himself<a id="k49b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and his wife? &mdash; It might have been assumed [that the law applies only] there,<a id="k49b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; because there is no one else to provide for her,<a id="k49b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; but here [it might well be argued:] Let him provide for himself and for her;<a id="k49b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we were taught [that here also the same ruling applies]. 
</p><p>
	The question was raised: Is the law in agreement with his view<a id="k49b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; or not? &mdash; Come and hear: R. Hanina and R. Jonathan were once standing together when a man approached them and bending down kissed R. Jonathan upon his foot. 'What [is the meaning of] this?' said R. Hanina to him.<a id="k49b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; 'This man', the other<a id="k49b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; replied, 'assigned his estate to his sons in writing
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k50a_1:" Maintenance of their father by sons to whom he had assigned his estate."
,k50a_2:" He compelled them to obey the enactment of Usha though they pleaded adherence to the strict law'."
,k50a_3:" V <i>supra</i> note 2."
,k50a_4:" Naturally not, Since the sons would have had no ground whatsoever on which to base their refusal."
,k50a_5:" V. <i>Supra</i> p. 283, n. 12."
,k50a_6:" In charity."
,k50a_7:" Of his wealth. (The reason is given anon. Cf. <i>infra</i> 76b, 'Ar. 282)."
,k50a_8:" Lit., 'creatures'."
,k50a_9:" His friend."
,k50a_10:" That no more than a fifth may be spent on charity."
,k50a_11:" [H] raguba (Infinitive and Imperfect), the repetition of the verb [H] ('to give a tenth') implies two tenths or one fifth."
,k50a_12:" Gen. XXVIII, 22."
,k50a_13:" Which, being taken from the nine tenths that remained after the first tenth had been given away. represents only (1/10 x 9/10 = ) 9/100 of the original capital."
,k50a_14:" [H], So lit. imperfect with suffix of 3rd sing. instead of the imperfect [H]."
,k50a_15:" The enactments of Usha reported <i>supra</i> by R Elai."
,k50a_16:" The first enactment was reported by three Amoraim: R Elai, Resh Lakish and R. Judah (or Jose) b. Hanina (<i>supra</i> 40b), the second only by two: R. Elai and Resh Lakish (<i>supra</i> l.c.). while the third was reported by R Elai alone."
,k50a_17:" An aid to the recollection of the order in which they were cited and thereby the order of the diminutions."
,k50a_18:" 'A man shall maintain&nbsp;&hellip; while they are young' (<i>supra</i> 49b."
,k50a_19:" 'If a man assigned&nbsp;&hellip; in writing' (<i>supra</i> l.c.)."
,k50a_20:" 'If a man wishes to spend liberally' (the last cited enactment)."
,k50a_21:" V. <i>Supra</i> p. 183, n. 12."
,k50a_22:" Lit., 'roll', i.e., have patience with him, and employ gentle means to induce him to study."
,k50a_23:" Lit., 'from here'."
,k50a_24:" Lit., 'go down with him into'."
,k50a_25:" Sc. he may adopt drastic measures if his son is neglectful or indifferent."
,k50a_26:" Lit., 'I am not (in agreement)'."
,k50a_27:" A teacher of young children (v. B.B. 8b)."
,k50a_28:" B.B. 21a. This seems to shew that the age of compulsion is six, contrary to R. Isaac's tradition which puts it at twelve."
,k50a_29:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 14."
,k50a_30:" Lit., 'that'."
,k50a_31:" Which a child should begin studying at the age of six."
,k50a_32:" His mother died while he was an infant, and his upbringing was entrusted to a nurse from whom he learned many proverbs and maxims, legends and folklore; v. Kid. 31b."
,k50a_33:" [H]. V. n. 23."
,k50a_34:" [H], lit., 'from time to time', from a certain hour of one day to the same hour on the following day."
,k50a_35:" The fast of the Day of Atonement and that of the Ninth of Ab last for a full twenty-four hours, beginning near sunset and terminating at nightfall on the following day."
,k50a_36:" Who matures earlier."
,k50a_37:" Sc. twelve years and one day (Tosaf s.v. [H], a.l., contrary to Rashi who interprets 'twelve' as 'twelfth', viz., from the age of eleven years and a day). [The text is uncertain. MS.M. and Asheri read 'and one of twelve ([H]) for a full twenty four hours' fast and in the case of a little girl'. This may mean; (a) 'and that applies to a little girl', whereas in the case of a boy the age for a full fast begins at thirteen, or (b) 'and the same law applies to a girl'; v. Isaiah Trani. Tosaf. seems to have had a still shorter text with no reference to a boy; v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]]."
,k50a_38:" Unless the appropriate remedy is applied (Rashi). Cf., however, Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l."
,k50a_39:" [H]. The 'white dayyah' is the Talmudic interpretation of [H] (Lev. XI, 19), E.V. stork (cf. Hul. 63a)."
,k50a_40:" Sc. all his efforts to restore his child to normal health will be of no avail. His health remalns irrevocably ruined."
,k50a_41:" He will always surpass them in knowledge and attainments."
,k50a_42:" Lit., 'they are."
,k50a_43:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 3."
,k50a_44:" Lit., 'that'."
,k50a_45:" <i>Infra</i> 78b, B.K. 88b, B.M. 35a, 96b, B.B. 50a. 139b."
,k50a_46:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 183, n. 12."
,k50a_47:" <i>Melog</i> (v.Glos)."
,k50a_48:" Who has the legal status of a buyer."
,k50a_49:" Since he is in the position of the earliest purchaser."
,k50a_50:" [H], so MS.M. Cur. edd. [H] 'of Usha'. <i>Var. lec</i>. [H] 'engaged in teaching the laws passed at Usha' (Jast.)."
,k50a_51:" Sc. would never forget it."
,k50a_52:" Ps. CVI, 3."
,k50a_53:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 181, n. 19."
,k50a_54:" This is a charitable act, since legally they have no claim upon him for maintenance."
,k50a_55:" Children being 'at all times' dependent on their father, the text cited may well be applied to such a man. [H] 'righteousness' may also signify 'charity'."
,k50a_56:" Ps. CXII, 3."
,k50a_57:" Which is compared to 'wealth and riches'."
,k50a_58:" His Torah is not thereby diminished so that 'wealth and riches' (v. <i>supra</i> note 7) 'are in his house', and 'his merit' for teaching other people 'endureth for ever'."
,k50a_59:" Cf. <i>supra</i> notes 7 and 8 mutatis mutandis. The scrolls remain his, while his 'merit endureth for ever' for enabling others to study."
,k50a_60:" Ps. CXXVIII, 6."
,k50a_61:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k50a_62:" Which are frequently the cause of quarrels."
,k50a_63:" Sc. legal heirs."
,k50a_64:" On the disposal of the estate of the deceased."
,k50a_65:" So MS.M. and our Mishnah <i>supra</i> 493. Cur. edd. omit 'b. Azariah' from the quotation. "
}

txt:
<p>
and I compelled them to maintain him'. Now if it be conceded that this<a id="k50a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; was not [in accordance with the strict] law one can well understand why he had to compel them,<a id="k50a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it be contended that this<a id="k50a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is the law, would it have been necessary for him [it may be objected] to compel them?<a id="k50a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Elai stated: It was ordained at Usha<a id="k50a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; that if a man wishes to spend liberally<a id="k50a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he should not spend more than a fifth.<a id="k50a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; So it was also taught: If a man desires to spend liberally<a id="k50a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he should not spend more than a fifth,<a id="k50a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [since by spending more] he might himself come to be in need [of the help] of people.<a id="k50a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; It once happened that a man wished to spend<a id="k50a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; more than a fifth<a id="k50a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but his friend did not allow him. Who was it?<a id="k50a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Yeshebab. Others say [that the man who wished to spend was] R. Yeshebab, but his friend did not allow him. And who was it?<a id="k50a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba. R. Nahman, or as some say, R. Aha b. Jacob, said: What [is the proof from] Scripture?<a id="k50a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; And of all that Thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth<a id="k50a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; into thee.<a id="k50a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But the second tenth,<a id="k50a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, is not like the first one? &mdash; R. Ashi replied: I will&nbsp;&hellip; give a tenth of it<a id="k50a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [implies 'I will make] the second like the first'. 
</p><p>
	Said R. Shimi b. Ashi: [The number of those who report] these traditions<a id="k50a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; steadily diminishes,<a id="k50a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and your mnemonic<a id="k50a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; is 'The young<a id="k50a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; assigned in writing<a id="k50a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and spend liberally'.<a id="k50a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac stated: It was ordained at Usha<a id="k50a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; that a man must bear<a id="k50a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; with his son until [he is] twelve years [of age]. From that age<a id="k50a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; onwards he may threaten<a id="k50a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; his life.<a id="k50a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But could this be correct?<a id="k50a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Did not Rab, in fact, say to R. Samuel b. Shilath,<a id="k50a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Do not accept [a pupil] under the age of six; a pupil of the age of six you shall accept and stuff him like an ox'?<a id="k50a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Yes, 'stuff him like an ox', but he may not 'threaten him'<a id="k50a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; until after [he has reached the age of] twelve years. And if you prefer I may say: This<a id="k50a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; is no difficulty, since one may have referred<a id="k50a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; to Scripture<a id="k50a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other to Mishnah; for Abaye stated: Nurse<a id="k50a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; told me that a child of six [is ripe] for Scripture; one of ten, for Mishnah; one of thirteen,<a id="k50a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; for a full twenty-four hours'<a id="k50a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; fast,<a id="k50a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; and, in the case of a girl,<a id="k50a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [one who is of] the age of twelve.<a id="k50a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye stated, Nurse<a id="k50a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; told me: A child of the age of six whom a scorpion has bitten on the day on which he has completed his sixth year does not survive [as a rule].<a id="k50a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; What is his remedy? &mdash; The gall of a white stork<a id="k50a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; in beer. This should be rubbed into the wound [and the patient] be made to drink it. A child of the age of one year whom a bee has stung on the day he has completed his first year does not survive [as a rule].<a id="k50a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; What is his remedy? &mdash; The creepers of a palm-tree in water. This should be rubbed in and [the patient] be made to drink it. 
</p><p>
	Said R. Kattina: Whosoever brings his son [to school] under the age of six will run after hint but never overtake him.<a id="k50a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say: His fellows will run after him but will never overtake him.<a id="k50a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Both statements, however, are correct:<a id="k50a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; He is feeble but learned. If you prefer I might say: The former<a id="k50a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; applies to one<a id="k50a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; who is emaciated; the latter, to one<a id="k50a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; who is in good health. 
</p><p>
	R. Jose b. Hanina stated:<a id="k50a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; At Usha<a id="k50a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; it was ordained that if a woman had sold usufruct property<a id="k50a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; during the lifetime of her husband and then died, the husband<a id="k50a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; may seize it from the buyers.<a id="k50a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Joseph found R. Abbahu standing among a crowd of people.<a id="k50a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Who', he said to hint, 'is the author of the traditions of Usha?' &mdash; 'R. Jose b. Hanina', the other informed him. He learned this from him forty times and then it appeared to him as if he had it safely in his bag.<a id="k50a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	Happy are they that keep justice, that do righteousness at all times.<a id="k50a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it possible to do righteousness at all times? &mdash; This, explained our Rabbis of Jabneh<a id="k50a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; (or, as others say. R. Eliezer), refers to a man who maintains his sons and daughters<a id="k50a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; while they are young.<a id="k50a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: This<a id="k50a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to a man who brings up an orphan boy or orphan girl in his house and enables them to marry. 
</p><p>
	Wealth and riches are in his house; and his merit endureth for ever.<a id="k50a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna and R. Hisda [expounded the text in different ways]. One said: It applies to a man who studies the Torah<a id="k50a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; and teaches it to others;<a id="k50a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other said: It applies to a man who writes the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa and lends them to others.<a id="k50a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; And see thy children's children,' peace be upon Israel.<a id="k50a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua b. Levy said: As soon as your children have children there will be peace upon Israel; for they will not be subject to <i>halizah</i><a id="k50a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; or levirate marriage.<a id="k50a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: As soon as your children have children<a id="k50a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; there will be peace for the judges of Israel, for [doubtful claimants] will not come to quarrels.<a id="k50a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THIS EXPOSITION WAS MADE BY R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH<a id="k50a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SAGES etc.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k50b_1:" Certainly not. The Torah did not restrict the laws of inheritance to landed estates only."
,k50b_2:" R. Hamnuna."
,k50b_3:" If their mother pre-deceased their father they are entitled to recover her <i>kethubah</i> from his estate over and above the shares to which they like the other sons are entitled."
,k50b_4:" The comparison made between the maintenance of daughters and the inheritance of sons was not, as the others who shouted assumed, the ordinary inheritance of sons, which is a Pentateuchal right, but their inheritance of their mother's <i>kethubah</i> (v. <i>supra</i> n. 3) which, like the maintenance of daughters, is merely a Rabbinical obligation undertaken by their father in accordance with the terms of the <i>kethubah</i> which he gave to their mother. Cf. <i>infra</i> 52b, and 91b."
,k50b_5:" In the absence of real estate."
,k50b_6:" Sc. movable property."
,k50b_7:" [H]. The noun [H] may signify either 'upper chamber' or 'best' 'generous'. The meaning is discussed anon."
,k50b_8:" Which is levied from movables also."
,k50b_9:" Lit., 'and what 'aliyyah?'"
,k50b_10:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 7."
,k50b_11:" For a daughter, out of her deceased father's estate."
,k50b_12:" <i>Infra</i> 68a. A bigger allowance if he was known to be generous, and a smaller one if he was known to be niggardly."
,k50b_13:" Which, forming one of the terms of the <i>kethubah</i>, may legally be recovered like the statutory <i>kethubah</i> itself, from landed property only."
,k50b_14:" Lit., 'good'."
,k50b_15:" In favour of daughters."
,k50b_16:" Cf. 'the upper chamber of Hananiah b. Hezekiah' (Shab. 13b) and v. <i>supra</i>"
,k50b_17:" [Despite the fact that the lien clause in the Mishnah on which they base their claims to maintenance did not include movables, v. <i>infra</i> 56b]."
,k50b_18:" Who testified <i>supra</i> to the enactment made in favour of daughters."
,k50b_19:" In the case dealt with by Samuel."
,k50b_20:" V. p. 290, n. 11."
,k50b_21:" V. p. 290, n. 12."
,k50b_22:" In which daughters claimed maintenance from their deceased father's movable property."
,k50b_23:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 222, n. 8."
,k50b_24:" Lit., 'judged'."
,k50b_25:" Where a similar case (v. <i>supra</i> n. 6) occurred."
,k50b_26:" From the movable property of their deceased father."
,k50b_27:" Lit., 'and if not'."
,k50b_28:" Of daughters."
,k50b_29:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 10."
,k50b_30:" Lit., 'did not do a deed'."
,k50b_31:" Lit., 'in you'."
,k50b_32:" Lit., 'measure'."
,k50b_33:" Of a daughter who claimed maintenance out of her deceased father's estate."
,k50b_34:" Lit., 'that (case) which came before'."
,k50b_35:" To dry; sc. movable property."
,k50b_36:" Who is entitled to distrain upon sold property, a right to which a daughter is not entitled."
,k50b_37:" The seizure of movable assets. The answer being in the negative, the question arises: How could R. Joseph allow a daughter the privilege to which even a creditor is not entitled?"
,k50b_38:" I. e., ripe."
,k50b_39:" But are still attached to the tree. Attached fruit has the status of landed property.>"
}

txt:
<p>
R. Joseph sat before R. Hamnuna while R. Hamnuna was sitting and discoursing: As sons may obtain their inheritance only from landed property so may one's daughters obtain their maintenance only from landed property. All shouted at him: 'Is it only from a man who leaves land that sons inherit while from him who leaves no land his sons do not inherit?'<a id="k50b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Joseph to him:<a id="k50b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Might not the Master have been speaking of the <i>kethubah</i> [that is due to] male children?<a id="k50b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; The other<a id="k50b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; replied: The Master who is a great man understood precisely what I meant.<a id="k50b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Joseph stated: Rab allowed maintenance [to daughters]<a id="k50b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; from wheat<a id="k50b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; of 'aliyyah.<a id="k50b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The question was raised: Was [Rab's allowance made for] a marriage outfit,<a id="k50b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and by 'aliyyah is meant,<a id="k50b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'in accordance with her father's generans<a id="k50b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; disposition', [his ruling being] in agreement with that of Samuel who laid down that in respect of marriage outfit the assessment<a id="k50b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is determined by [the disposition of] the father;<a id="k50b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; or was it rather for actual maintenance,<a id="k50b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and by 'aliyyah was meant<a id="k50b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'in accordance with the chivalrous<a id="k50b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; enactments made<a id="k50b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; in an upper chamber',<a id="k50b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; for R. Isaac b. Joseph stated: In an upper chamber it was enacted that daughters shall be maintained even out of movable property?<a id="k50b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: R. Benai the brother of R. Hiyya b. Abba had in his possession orphans' movable property, and when [he and the daughters of the deceased] came before Samuel, the latter said to him, 'Go and provide maintenance [for them]'. Does not [maintenance refer] to actual maintenance, he being of the same opinion as R. Isaac b. Joseph?<a id="k50b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; there<a id="k50b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [the claim] was in respect of marriage outfit, and Samuel [acted] in accordance with his own view, since he laid down that in respect of marriage outfit the assessment<a id="k50b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is determined by [the disposition of] the father.<a id="k50b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Such] a case<a id="k50b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; occurred at Nehardea,<a id="k50b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Nehardean judges issued an order<a id="k50b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [in favour of the daughters]. At Pumbeditha also<a id="k50b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hana b. Bizna allowed [daughters] to collect [for their maintenance].<a id="k50b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman, however, said to them: Proceed to withdraw [your orders], otherwise<a id="k50b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; I shall order the seizure of your mansions. 
</p><p>
	R. Ammi and R. Assi intended to allow maintenance<a id="k50b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; out of movable property.<a id="k50b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Jacob b. Idi to them: In a matter concerning which R. Johanan and Resh Lakish hesitated to act<a id="k50b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; would you [venture to] act? 
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar intended to allow maintenance<a id="k50b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; out of movable property.<a id="k50b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Simeon b. Eliakim to him: 'Master, I know that in your decision<a id="k50b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; you are not acting on the line<a id="k50b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; of justice but on the line of mercy, but [the possibility ought to be considered that] the students might observe this ruling and fix it as an <i>halachah</i> for future generations'. 
</p><p>
	A similar case<a id="k50b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; was once submitted to<a id="k50b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph. 'Give her', he ordered, 'of the dates that [are spread] on the reed-mat'.<a id="k50b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him, 'Even if she were a creditor<a id="k50b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; would the Master have allowed her [a privilege] of such a nature?'<a id="k50b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'What I mean is', the other said to him, '[dates] that are suitable<a id="k50b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; for [spreading on] the reed-mat'.<a id="k50b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k51a_1:" Lit., 'that stands'."
,k51a_2:" [H], so MS.M., Aruk, Tosaf. B.B. 42b (s.v. [H]). Cur. edd., [H] 'to shear', is also the reading of Tosaf. a.l. (s.v. [H])."
,k51a_3:" [H]. This is the reading of the authorities who adopt [H] (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9). The others read [H]."
,k51a_4:" Lit., 'require'."
,k51a_5:" Not being sufficiently ripe they are deemed to he part of the tree (cf. <i>supra</i> note 7)."
,k51a_6:" Brother and sister whose deceased father's movable property had been entrusted to a guardian."
,k51a_7:" Claiming an allowance out of their father's estate."
,k51a_8:" Sc. an allowance that shall suffice for the two."
,k51a_9:" <i>Infra</i> 69b; how then did Raba allow the exaction of maintenance out of movable assets (v. <i>supra</i> n. 13)?"
,k51a_10:" As heir the boy is entitled to have all his needs supplied from the estate."
,k51a_11:" Where the sister attends on her brother."
,k51a_12:" Lit., 'there is'."
,k51a_13:" Attendance and maintenance."
,k51a_14:" Lit., 'property which has surety', sc. to which a claimant may resort in case of non-payment by the defendant."
,k51a_15:" From orphans."
,k51a_16:" Of their deceased father."
,k51a_17:" <i>Infra</i> 68b."
,k51a_18:" For their maintenance or marriage outfit."
,k51a_19:" Sc. the younger are given equal shares with the elder though the latter had taken earlier possession of their father's estate."
,k51a_20:" V. next note."
,k51a_21:" I. e., if it does not suffice for the maintenance of the sons and the daughters until they reach adolescence (Rashi. Cf. B.B. 139b). In such a case the estate belongs to the daughters while the sons may go begging (B.B. <i>loc. cit</i>.)."
,k51a_22:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1 <i>mutatis mutandis</i>."
,k51a_23:" V. <i>supra</i> note 6."
,k51a_24:" Movable assets of the deceased in the possession of his sons are regarded, as far as his daughters are concerned, as non-existent."
,k51a_25:" <i>Supra</i> p. 292 and <i>infra</i> 69b."
,k51a_26:" Lit., 'for her'."
,k51a_27:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k51a_28:" The statutory amount of a virgin's <i>kethubah</i>."
,k51a_29:" This is one of the statutory clauses that a <i>kethubah</i> must contain."
,k51a_30:" V. p. 293. n. 15."
,k51a_31:" Lit., 'for her'."
,k51a_32:" With whom her husband (the priest) may not live again after she had been a captive and in whose favour the clause 'and take you again as wife' cannot be written."
,k51a_33:" Lit., 'country', 'district'."
,k51a_34:" Lit., 'behold'."
,k51a_35:" Since the obligation to ransom her is incurred as soon as she is taken captive."
,k51a_36:" Lit., 'to heal her'."
,k51a_37:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k51a_38:" Lit., 'behold this'."
,k51a_39:" <i>Infra</i> 54b."
,k51a_40:" As her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k51a_41:" Though she has received nothing."
,k51a_42:" <i>Infra</i> 54b. Now since our Mishnah insists on the payment of the full amount of the <i>kethubah</i>, presumably even if the woman had surrendered her claim (corresponding to a quittance), it can only represent the view of R. Meir who disallows such a surrender and not that of R. Judah who allows it."
,k51a_43:" This is assumed to include even property which he disposed of subsequent to the writing of the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k51a_44:" Lit., 'it comes'."
,k51a_45:" E.g that of the debtor to the creditor."
,k51a_46:" And not as the considered consent of the creditor. Despite its error the pledging clause is deemed to have been entered. "
}

txt:
<p>
'After all, however, [it may be objected] is not all that is ripe<a id="k51a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; for cutting<a id="k51a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; regarded as already cut?'<a id="k51a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'I mean [dates] that are still dependent<a id="k51a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; on the palm-tree'.<a id="k51a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A boy orphan and girl orphan<a id="k51a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; once came before Raba.<a id="k51a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Grant a bigger [maintenance allowance] to the boy', said Raba, 'for the sake of the girl'.<a id="k51a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Said the Rabbis to Raba: Did not the Master himself lay down [that payment may be exacted] from landed property but not from movable property whether in respect of [a daughter's] maintenance, [a wife's] <i>kethubah</i> or [a daughter's] marriage outfit?<a id="k51a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He answered them: Had he desired to have a handmaid to attend on him would we not have granted him [an Increased allowance for the purpose]?<a id="k51a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; How much more then [should the allowance be increased] here<a id="k51a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; where it serves<a id="k51a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; two [purposes].<a id="k51a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Both landed property<a id="k51a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and movable property may be seized<a id="k51a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; for the maintenance of a wife<a id="k51a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; or daughters;<a id="k51a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; so Rabbi.<a id="k51a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: Landed property may be seized for daughters<a id="k51a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; from sons, for daughters from daughters,<a id="k51a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and for sons from Sons;<a id="k51a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; for sons from daughters where the estate is large<a id="k51a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but not where it is small.<a id="k51a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Movable property<a id="k51a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; may be seized for sons from sons,<a id="k51a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for daughters from daughters<a id="k51a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and for sons from daughters, but not for daughters from sons.<a id="k51a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Although we have an established rule that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with Rabbi [where he differs] from his colleague, the <i>halachah</i> here is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Eleazar; for Raba stated: The law is [that payment may be exacted] from landed property but not from movable property whether in respect of a <i>kethubah</i>, maintenance or marriage outfit.<a id="k51a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF A HUSBAND] DID NOT WRITE A <I>KETHUBAH</I> FOR HIS WIFE<a id="k51a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MAY RECOVER TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I><a id="k51a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF AT MARRIAGE SHE WAS] A VIRGIN, AND ONE <I>MANEH</I><a id="k51a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF SHE WAS THEN] A WIDOW, BECAUSE [THE STATUTORY <I>KETHUBAH</I>] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY <I>BETH DIN</I>.
</p><p>
	IF HE ASSIGNED TO HER IN WRITING A FIELD THAT WAS WORTH ONE MANEH INSTEAD OF THE TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I>,<a id="k51a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; AND DID NOT WRITE IN HER FAVOUR,<a id="k51a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'ALL PROPERTY THAT I POSSESS IS SURETY FOR YOUR KETHUBAH',<a id="k51a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE [FOR THE FULL AMOUNT]<a id="k51a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; BECAUSE [THE CLAUSE MENTIONED] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY <I>BETH DIN</I>. IF HE DID NOT WRITE IN HER FAVOUR<a id="k51a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [THE CLAUSE], IF YOU ARE TAKEN CAPTIVE I WILL RANSOM YOU AND TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE,'<a id="k51a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; OR, IN THE CASE OF A PRIEST'S WIFE,<a id="k51a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; '<a id="k51a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; WILL RESTORE YOU TO YOUR PARENTAL HOME',<a id="k51a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE [TO CARRY OUT THESE OBLIGATIONS], BECAUSE [THE CLAUSE] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY <I>BETH DIN</I>.
</p><p>
	IF SHE IS TAKEN CAPTIVE IT IS HIS DUTY TO RANSOM HER; AND IF HE SAID, 'HERE<a id="k51a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; IS HER LETTER OF DIVORCE AND HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> LET HER RANSOM HERSELF', HE IS NOT ALLOWED [TO ACT ACCORDLNGLY].<a id="k51a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SHE SUSTAINED AN INJURY IT IS HIS DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR HER MEDICAL TREATMENT,<a id="k51a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF HE SAID, HERE<a id="k51a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; IS HER LETTER OF DIVORCE AND HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>, LET HER HEAL HERSELF', HE IS ALLOWED [TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS DESIRE].
<P>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Whose [view is represented in our Mishnah]? It is [obviously that of] R. Meir who ruled [that the intercourse of] any man who undertakes to give a virgin less than two hundred <i>zuz</i><a id="k51a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; or a widow less than 'a <i>Maneh</i><a id="k51a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; is<a id="k51a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; an act of prostitution;<a id="k51a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; for if [it be suggested that it is the view of] R. Judah, he surely, [it can be objected] ruled, [that if a husband] wished he may write out for a virgin<a id="k51a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; a deed for two hundred <i>zuz</i> and she writes [a quittance]<a id="k51a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I have received from you a <i>maneh</i>,' and for a widow [he may write out a deed for] a <i>maneh</i> and she writes [a quittance], 'I received from you fifty zuz'.<a id="k51a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Read, however, the final clause: IF HE ASSIGNED TO HER IN WRITING A FIELD THAT WAS WORTH ONE <I>MANEH</I> INSTEAD OF THE TWO HUNDRED <I>ZUZ</I>, AND DID NOT WRITE IN HER FAVOUR, ALL PROPERTY THAT I POSSESS<a id="k51a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; IS SURETY FOR YOUR KETHUBAH' HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE [FOR THE FULL AMOUNT], BECAUSE [THE CLAUSE MENTIONED] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY <I>BETH DIN</I>. Does not this obviously represent the view<a id="k51a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; of R. Judah who laid down that [the omission from a bond of the clause] pledging property<a id="k51a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; [is regarded as] the scribe's error?<a id="k51a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; for if [It be suggested that it represents the view of] R. Meir, he, surely, [it can be objected] ruled that [the omission of the clause] pledging property is not [regarded as] the scribe's error. For we have learned: If a man found notes of indebtedness
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k51b_1:" Either to the creditor or to the debtor."
,k51b_2:" Lit., 'from them', sc. the nekasim (assets). Aliter: 'Exact payment on the strength of them', sc. the notes. Such exaction would be an injustice to the debtor if he has paid his liabilities and it was he who had lost the paid notes. But even where the creditor admits liability collusion with the object of robbing purchasers may be suspected (v. B.M. 12b)."
,k51b_3:" Ff. <i>supra</i> n. 7, ab. init."
,k51b_4:" One of whom was R. Judah, a contemporary of R. Meir."
,k51b_5:" Ff. <i>supra</i> note 7."
,k51b_6:" Mishnah, B.M. 12b."
,k51b_7:" Lit., 'all of it'."
,k51b_8:" While in the case of the latter he does not regard the omission as a scribe's error, he does so in the case of the former since the terms of a <i>kethubah</i> are governed by statutory regulations laid down by <i>Beth din</i>."
,k51b_9:" Of the defendant; but not on his sold or mortgaged property."
,k51b_10:" In the case, for instance, where a field with its produce was taken away from a buyer by the man from whom the seller had robbed it. The buyer who may recover the cost of the field itself from the seller's sold or mortgaged property may not recover the cost of the produce except from his free assets. Cf. Git. 48b, B.M. 14b."
,k51b_11:" Where the buyer (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 3) incurred expense in effecting the improvements of the land."
,k51b_12:" Lit., 'and he who undertakes'."
,k51b_13:" B.K. 95a."
,k51b_14:" And that the holder of such a deed may only distrain on free assets."
,k51b_15:" Who most consequently be the author of the last cited Baraitha which states that 'a note of indebtedness wherein no lien on property had been entered' entitles the holder to distrain 'only on free assets'."
,k51b_16:" 'May be distrained only on free assets' if the clause pledging security was omitted from it. The section of our Mishnah, therefore, which states that, despite the omission of such a clause the husband is 'NEVERTHELESS LIABLE' and the <i>kethubah</i> may presumably be distrained on sold and mortgaged property also (v. <i>supra</i> p. 295. n. 2). cannot represent the view of R. Meir. How then could it be suggested that both clauses of our Mishnah (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 295, n. 12 and text) represent the view of R. Meir?"
,k51b_17:" In the Mishnah (<i>infra</i> 54b) cited <i>supra</i> 51a, according to which the statutory sum of a <i>kethubah</i> may be reduced."
,k51b_18:" Lit., 'for him'."
,k51b_19:" And she has the right to renounce a portion of her claim."
,k51b_20:" In our Mishnah which allows the woman the full amount of her <i>kethubah</i> even if her husband had written none."
,k51b_21:" And the object of our Mishnah is to point out that a woman's consent to dispense with the written document of her <i>kethubah</i> is no evidence that she has surrendered her right to recover the statutory amount to which she is entitled. It is assumed rather that her indifference to the written document is due to her reliance on her statutory rights."
,k51b_22:" Lit., 'what&nbsp;&hellip; that was taught'."
,k51b_23:" His sold or mortgaged property, however, may not be distrained on, in agreement with R. Meir, since no lien on property had been recorded in the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k51b_24:" Lit., 'her beginning'."
,k51b_25:" Lit., 'and her end'."
,k51b_26:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">And a wife who willingly played the harlot is forbidden to her husband.</font>"
,k51b_27:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Though a woman in captivity is usually assumed to have been outraged.</font>"
,k51b_28:" Job XXIX, 9."
,k51b_29:" Lit., 'what has he to say'."
,k51b_30:" Prohibiting an outraged woman to her husband."
,k51b_31:" Since her violation is only a suspicion."
,k51b_32:" Lit., <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">'permitted', <i>sc</i>. the woman is exempt from punishment</font>. Cf. Deut. XXII, 26."
,k51b_33:" Samuel's father's."
,k51b_34:" Lit., 'her beginning'."
,k51b_35:" Lit., 'clothed'."
,k51b_36:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Being a victim of her passions she is deemed to have acted under compulsion even when she professed acquiescence.</font>"
,k51b_37:" Num. V, 13. E.V., neither she be taken in the act."
,k51b_38:" Sc. if she was not seized, i.e., if she did not act under compulsion but willingly."
,k51b_39:" To her husband."
,k51b_40:" Sc. if she acted under compulsion."
,k51b_41:" But acted willingly."
,k51b_42:" Lit., 'her beginning'."
,k51b_43:" Lit., 'and her end'."
,k51b_44:" To her husband."
,k51b_45:" Sc. if she acted under compulsion."
,k51b_46:" Yeb. 56b."
,k51b_47:" V. <i>supra</i> note 4."
,k51b_48:" When a condition which remained unfulfilled was attached to it. In such a case the woman may leave her husband without a letter of divorce and she has the status of a feme sole who had never before been married."
,k51b_49:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>mi'un</i>. [Isaiah Trani: This is not to be taken literally. It means simply that she is permitted to marry another man without a bill of divorce]."
,k51b_50:" Lit., 'whom thieves steal'."
,k51b_51:" Any intercourse between the kidnappers and the women is regarded as outrage since the latter would not willingly consent to intimate relations with the men they detest."
,k51b_52:" The kidnapped women."
,k51b_53:" The thieves, which shows that they live on amicable terms with the kidnappers."
,k51b_54:" When their camp is attacked."
,k51b_55:" Sc. women forcibly taken into the royal harem (v. Rashi). Aliter. Captives of the government; 'forced by (Roman) officials' (Jast.)."
,k51b_56:" And are permitted to their husbands, in agreement with the terms of the <i>kethubah</i> (cf. our Mishnah)."
,k51b_57:" Lit., 'kingdom on kingdom'."
,k51b_58:" Lit., 'that'."
,k51b_59:" Sc. one taken captive by a royal personage. Not expecting ever to be married by such a person a captive would strenuously resist intimate relations."
,k51b_60:" Lit., 'that'."
,k51b_61:" [H] who was a robber and self-made ruler (cf. Rashi). A woman might well entertain the hope that such a man would consent to marry her and she might consequently allow intimate relations. Ben Nezer is identified by some authorities with Odenathos of Palmyra, who was first a robber chief and ultimately the founder of a dynasty (v. fast.). [V. Graetz, Geschichte, IV p. 453ff.]."
,k51b_62:" Lit., 'robbery on robbery'."
,k51b_63:" With whom no decent woman would desire to be associated even in marriage. Intercourse with such a man must, therefore, he regarded as outrage."
,k51b_64:" In the second Baraitha cited."
,k51b_65:" The Baraitha first mentioned."
,k51b_66:" Though such a marriage is forbidden (cf. Lev. XXI, 14)."
,k51b_67:" If she is taken captive."
,k51b_68:" The clause in her <i>kethubah</i> as the wife of a priest. Since her ransom would not lead to a re-union with the High Priest but only to her restoration to her parental home, he is obliged to ransom her. "
}

txt:
<p>
he must not restore them<a id="k51b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; if they contain a clause pledging property, because the court would exact payment from such property,<a id="k51b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they do not contain the clause pledging property, he must return them, because the court will not exact payment from the property;<a id="k51b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; so R. Meir. The Sages,<a id="k51b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; however, ruled: In either case he must not return them, because the court will exact payment from the property<a id="k51b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [in any case].<a id="k51b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Would then the first clause [represent the view of] R. Meir and the final clause that of R. Judah? And should you suggest that both clauses<a id="k51b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [represent the view of] R. Meir and that he draws a distinction between a <i>kethubah</i> and notes of indebtedness,<a id="k51b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [it could be retorted] does he, indeed, draw such a distinction? Has it not been taught: For five [classes of claims] may distraint be made only on free assets;<a id="k51b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; they are as follows. [A claim for] produce,<a id="k51b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; for amelioration shewing profits,<a id="k51b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; for an undertaking<a id="k51b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to maintain the wife's son or the wife's daughter, for a note of indebtedness wherein no lien on property had been entered, and for a woman's <i>kethubah</i> from which the clause pledging security was omitted.<a id="k51b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Now what authority have you heard laying down that [the omission from a deed of a record of] a lien on property is not regarded as the scribe's error?<a id="k51b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [Obviously it is] R. Meir;<a id="k51b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet it was stated, was it not, 'a woman's kethubah'?<a id="k51b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you wish, I might reply: [Our Mishnah represents the view of] R. Meir; and if you prefer I might reply: [It represents the View of] R. Judah. 'If you prefer I might reply: [It represents the view of] R. Judah', for there<a id="k51b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; she specifically



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E142"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/142.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 142<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




wrote in the man's favour<a id="k51b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [in a quittance]: 'I received'<a id="k51b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but here<a id="k51b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; she did not write in his favour,<a id="k51b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I received'.<a id="k51b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'If you wish I might reply: [Our Mishnah represents the view of] R. Meir', for by the expression<a id="k51b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE' [was meant liability to pay] out of his free assets.<a id="k51b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE DID NOT WRITE IN HER FAVOUR etc. Samuel's father ruled: <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">The wife of an Israelite who had been outraged is forbidden to her husband, since it may be apprehended that the act begun<a id="k51b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; under compulsion may have terminated<a id="k51b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; with her consent</font>.<a id="k51b_26"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">26</font></sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab raised an objection against Samuel's father: [Have we not learned,] IF YOU ARE TAKEN CAPTIVE I WILL RANSOM YOU AND TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE?<a id="k51b_27"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">27</font></sup></a>&nbsp; The other remained silent. Rab thereupon applied to Samuel's father the Scriptural text, The princes refrained talking and laid their hand on their mouth.<a id="k51b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, could he have replied?<a id="k51b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [That the law]<a id="k51b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; was relaxed in the case of a captive.<a id="k51b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">According to Samuel's father's ruling how is it possible to conceive a case of outrage which the All-Merciful deemed to be genuine?<a id="k51b_32"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">32</font></sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Where, for instance, witnesses testified that she cried from the commencement to the end</font>.
</p><p>
	<font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">[This ruling],<a id="k51b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; however, differs from that of Raba; for Raba laid down: Any woman, the outrage against whom began<a id="k51b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; under



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E143"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/143.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 143<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">




compulsion, though it terminated with her consent, and even if she said, 'Leave him alone', and that if he had not made the attack upon her she would have hired him to do it, is permitted</font> [to her husband]. What is the reason? &mdash; <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">He plunged<a id="k51b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; her into an uncontrollable passion</font>.<a id="k51b_36"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">36</font></sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught in agreement with Raba: And she be not seized<a id="k51b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [only then]<a id="k51b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is she forbidden,<a id="k51b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [from which it follows] that if she was seized<a id="k51b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; she is permitted.<a id="k51b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; But there is another class of woman who is permitted<a id="k51b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; even if she was not seized.<a id="k51b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; And who is that? Any woman who began<a id="k51b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; under compulsion and ended<a id="k51b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; with her consent.
</p><p>
	Another Baraitha taught: 'And she be not seized' [only then] is she forbidden<a id="k51b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [from which it follows] that if she was seized<a id="k51b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; she is permitted.<a id="k51b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; But there is another class of woman who is forbidden<a id="k51b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; even though she was seized. And who is that? The wife of a priest.<a id="k51b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Ishmael: 'And she be not seized', [then only]<a id="k51b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; is she forbidden,<a id="k51b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; but if she was seized she is permitted. There is, however, another class of woman who is permitted even if she was not seized. And who is that? A woman whose betrothal was a mistaken one,<a id="k51b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; and who may, even if her son sits riding on her shoulder, make a declaration of refusal<a id="k51b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; [against her husband] and go away.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah ruled: Women who are kidnapped<a id="k51b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; are permitted to their husbands.<a id="k51b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; 'But', said the Rabbis to Rab Judah, 'do they<a id="k51b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; not bring bread to them?'<a id="k51b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [They do this] out of fear. 'Do they<a id="k51b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; not, however, hand them<a id="k51b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; their arrows?'<a id="k51b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [They do this also] out of fear. It is certain, however, that they<a id="k51b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; are forbidden if [the kidnappers] release then, and they go to them of their own free will.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Royal captives<a id="k51b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; have the status of ordinary captives<a id="k51b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; but those that are kidnapped by highwaymen are not regarded as ordinary captives. Was not, the reverse, however, taught? &mdash; There is no contradiction between the rulings concerning royal captives<a id="k51b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; since the former refers<a id="k51b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; [for example] to the kingdom of Ahasuerus<a id="k51b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; while the latter refers<a id="k51b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; to the kingdom of [one like] Ben Nezer.<a id="k51b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; There is also no contradiction between the two rulings concerning captives of highwaymen<a id="k51b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; since the former refers<a id="k51b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; to [a highwayman like] Ben Nezer<a id="k51b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; while the latter refers<a id="k51b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; to an ordinary highwayman.<a id="k51b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As to Ben Nezer, could he be called there<a id="k51b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; 'king' and here<a id="k51b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; 'highwayman'? &mdash; Yes; in comparison with Ahasuerus he was a highwayman but in comparison with an ordinary robber he was a king.
</p><p>
	OR, IN THE CASE OF A PRIEST'S WIFE, 'I WILL RESTORE YOU TO YOUR PARENTAL HOME' etc. Abaye ruled: If a widow was married to a High Priest<a id="k51b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; it is the latter's duty to ransom<a id="k51b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; her, since one may apply to her: OR IN THE CASE OF A PRIEST'S WIFE, I WILL RESTORE YOU TO YOUR PARENTAL HOME',<a id="k51b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k52a_1:" Fem. of nathin (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k52a_2:" As the Israelite is forbidden to live with her."
,k52a_3:" Which is the appropriate clause entered in a <i>kethubah</i> given to the wife of an Israelite, and which cannot apply (v. <i>supra</i> n. 5) where she is one forbidden to him."
,k52a_4:" Lit., 'the prohibition of captivity causes her'."
,k52a_5:" Contrary to the opinion of Abaye, the clause entered in a <i>kethubah</i> of a priest's wife obliges the priest to ransom his wife though she becomes forbidden to him through her captivity, only if she was permitted to him before she had been taken captive."
,k52a_6:" As, for instance, a widow to a High Priest."
,k52a_7:" Because, in the case of a forbidden marriage, as the clause 'AND TAKE YOU AGAIN AS WIFE' was originally invalid (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 6) the clause 'RESTORE YOU TO YOUR PARENTAL HOME' also has no validity. Thus, contrary to the ruling of Abaye, Raba maintains that a High Priest is under no obligation to ransom a widow whom he married in contravention of the laws of the High Priesthood. In the case of a bastard and a nethinah Raba is, of course, of the same opinion as Abaye."
,k52a_8:" Abaye and Raba."
,k52a_9:" Although, owing to his vow, he would subsequently be compelled to divorce her."
,k52a_10:" Though there is good reason to suspect that the object of his vow was to escape his responsibility of ransoming her."
,k52a_11:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k52a_12:" R. Eliezer and R. Joshua."
,k52a_13:" Lit., 'what, not?'"
,k52a_14:" I. e., the man who made the vow was himself a priest. It is his duty to ransom his wife, though her being prohibited to him is not due to her captivity, because the clause, 'I WILL RESTORE YOU TO YOUR PARENTAL HOME' may well be applied. Their dispute could not refer to an Israelite who made such a vow, since in that case, the clause 'AND TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE' being inapplicable. R. Eliezer could not have imposed upon the man the duty of ransoming his wife."
,k52a_15:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5."
,k52a_16:" That the husband is exempt from ransoming his wife because her prohibition to him was not caused by her captivity but by some other circumstance, viz. his vow."
,k52a_17:" R. Eliezer and R. Joshua do not differ on the same principles on which Abaye and Raba differed, both of them agreeing either with Abaye or with Raba."
,k52a_18:" Lit., 'here in what?'"
,k52a_19:" An Israelite."
,k52a_20:" Explicitly or implicity."
,k52a_21:" By his confirmation of the vow."
,k52a_22:" Metaph. It is his fault that the vow remained valid. Had he desired to annul it he had the full power to do so (v. Num. XXX, 7ff). As he is thus the cause of the woman's prohibition to him and of rendering the clause in the <i>kethubah</i> inapplicable, he must pay the penalty by retaining the responsibility of ransoming her."
,k52a_23:" She should not have made her vow. Having made it her prohibition to her husband is her own fault. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 13 mutatis mutandis."
,k52a_24:" Lit., 'what is its doing'."
,k52a_25:" I. e., by confirming it."
,k52a_26:" In either case, since it was she who made the vow, no trick on the part of the husband can be suspected."
,k52a_27:" In the dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua."
,k52a_28:" Between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua."
,k52a_29:" Neither R. Eliezer nor R. Joshua. Lit., 'all the world'."
,k52a_30:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 300. n. 3. The fact that she is forbidden to him for come reason other than that of her captivity being of no consequence."
,k52a_31:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 300, n. 2, and text."
,k52a_32:" Sc. a Priest against his own wife."
,k52a_33:" In either case the clause, 'I WILL RESTORE YOU TO YOUR PARENTAL HOME' (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 300, n. 3) may well be applied after, as well as before, the woman had been taken captive."
,k52a_34:" St. Eliezer and R. Joshua."
,k52a_35:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 9 mutatis mutandis. To the wife of an Israelite it was originally possible to apply the clause, 'I WILL TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE' but now, owing to the vow, it can no longer be applied."
,k52a_36:" Lit., 'goes after (the status) of the beginning'. When the clause was applicable and therefore the obligation stands."
,k52a_37:" Lit.,'in the end'."
,k52a_38:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 302, n. 6."
,k52a_39:" In the case of the widow to a High Priest, as her prohibition is due to a cause other than captivity, neither the clause relating to 'remarriage' nor that of 'restoring her to her parental home' is valid (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 300. n. 10); and in the case of the last mentioned because the clause, 'I WILL TAKE You AGAIN AS MY WIFE could not be applied originally and cannot be applied now."
,k52a_40:" R. Eliezer and R. Joshua."
,k52a_41:" To either of whom the relevant clauses of her <i>kethubah</i> that were originally applicable now, on account of the vow which is a cause of prohibition 'other than that of captivity'."
,k52a_42:" And thus incurred the liability to ransom her before he died."
,k52a_43:" Lit., 'to do a deed'."
,k52a_44:" R. Hiyya who was Rab's father's brother."
,k52a_45:" Lit., 'as that'."
,k52a_46:" Lit., 'and no more but'."
,k52a_47:" Since her husband is dead. V. Tosef. Keth. IV."
,k52a_48:" At all. It is his duty to ransom her no more than once (Rashi). Aliter: For an exorbitant price (v. R. Han. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a. l.). If, however, the ransom demanded is not higher than her value he must pay it. "
}

txt:
<p>
but if a bastard or a nethinah<a id="k52a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; was married to an Israelite the latter is under no obligation to ransom her, since one cannot apply to her:<a id="k52a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE.<a id="k52a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba ruled: Wherever the captivity causes the woman to be forbidden<a id="k52a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [to her husband] it is his duty to ransom her<a id="k52a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but where some other circumstance causes her to be forbidden to him<a id="k52a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not his duty to ransom her.<a id="k52a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Must it be assumed [that they<a id="k52a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; differ on the same principles] as the following Tannaim? [For it was taught:] If a man forbade his wife by a vow [from deriving any benefit from him] and she was taken captive, he must, said R. Eliezer, ransom her<a id="k52a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and give her also her <i>kethubah</i>. R. Joshua said: He must give her her <i>kethubah</i> but need not ransom her. Said R. Nathan: I asked Symmachus, 'When R. Joshua said, "He must give her her <i>kethubah</i> but need not ransom her" [did he refer to a case] where her husband first made his vow against her and she was then taken captive or even to a case where she was first taken captive and he made his vow against her subsequently?'<a id="k52a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And he told me, 'I did not hear [what he exactly said] but it seems [that he referred to] a case where [the husband] made the vow against her first and the woman was taken captive afterwards; for, should you suggest [that the ruling applied also to a woman who] was taken captive first and the man made his vow against her afterwards [the objection could be raised that in such a case] he might make use of a trick'.<a id="k52a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Do not they<a id="k52a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; then differ<a id="k52a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in [the case of one] who made a vow against the wife of a priest,<a id="k52a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye upholding the view of R. Eliezer<a id="k52a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; while Raba IS maintaining that of R. Joshua?<a id="k52a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No;<a id="k52a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; here<a id="k52a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; we are dealing [with the case of a woman] who, for instance, made the vow herself and her husband<a id="k52a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; confirmed it,<a id="k52a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer being of the opinion that it was he<a id="k52a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; who put his finger between her teeth<a id="k52a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Joshua maintains that it was she herself who put her finger between her teeth.<a id="k52a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[But] If she herself put her finger between her teeth what claim can she have to her<a id="k52a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>kethubah</i>? And, furthermore, [it was stated]: Said R. Nathan: I asked Symmachus, 'When R. Joshua said, "He must give her her <i>kethubah</i> but need not ransom her" [did he refer to a case] where her husband first made his vow against her and she was then taken captive or even to a case where she was first taken captive and he made his vow against her subsequently?' and he told me: 'I did not hear [what he exactly said]'. Now if [this is a case] where she herself had made the vow, what difference is there [it may be asked] whether he made the vow first against her<a id="k52a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and she was taken captive afterwards or whether she was first taken captive and he then made the vow?<a id="k52a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact is that [here<a id="k52a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; it is a case where] the husband made the vow against her, but Abaye explains [the dispute]<a id="k52a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; on the lines of his view while Raba explains it on the lines of his view. 'Abaye explains the dispute on the lines of his view', thus: If a widow [was married] to a High Priest no one<a id="k52a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; disputes [the ruling] that it is the husband's duty to ransom her;<a id="k52a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; if a bastard or a nethinah [was married] to an Israelite no one<a id="k52a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; disputes the ruling that it is not his duty to ransom her,<a id="k52a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; if also one made a vow against the wife of a priest<a id="k52a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; no one<a id="k52a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; disputes the ruling that it is his duty to ransom her, since [the principle in this case] is identical with that of a widow [who was married] to a High Priest.<a id="k52a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k52a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; differ only in [respect of him who] made a vow against the wife of an Israelite,<a id="k52a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer being guided by the woman's original status<a id="k52a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Joshua is guided by her subsequent status.<a id="k52a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Raba explains it on the lines of his view', thus: If a widow [was married] to a High Priest, or a bastard or a nethinah to an Israelite no one<a id="k52a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; disputes the ruling that it is not the husband's duty to ransom her.<a id="k52a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k52a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; differ only in [the case where one] made a vow against either the wife of a priest or the wife of an Israelite,<a id="k52a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer being guided by the woman's original status<a id="k52a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Joshua is guided by her subsequent status.<a id="k52a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF SHE IS TAKEN CAPTIVE IT IS HIS DUTY TO RANSOM HER etc. Our Rabbis taught: If she was taken captive during the lifetime of her husband, and he died afterwards, and her husband was aware of her [captivity],<a id="k52a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; it is the duty of his heirs to ransom her, but if her husband was not aware of her captivity it is not the duty of his heirs to ransom her.
</p><p>
	Levi proposed to give a practical decision<a id="k52a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; in agreement with this Baraitha. Said Rab to him, Thus said my uncle:<a id="k52a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; The law is not in agreement with that Baraitha but with the following<a id="k52a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; wherein it was taught: [If a woman] was taken captive after the death of her husband it is not the duty of his orphans to ransom her, and, furthermore,<a id="k52a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; even if she was taken captive during the lifetime of her husband, but he died subsequently, the orphans are under no obligation to ransom her, since one cannot apply to her [the clause in her <i>kethubah</i>:] AND I WILL TAKE YOU AGAIN AS MY WIFE.<a id="k52a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If a woman] was taken captive and a demand was made upon her husband for as much as ten times her value, he must ransom her the first time. Subsequently, however, he ransoms her only if he desired to do so but need not ransom her<a id="k52a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; if he does not wish to do so. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k52b_1:" [H] 'for the sake of the social order' (Jast.), lit., 'for the establishment of the world', that captors should not thereby be encouraged to demand exorbitant prices for the ransom of their captive."
,k52b_2:" Lit., 'her ransom'."
,k52b_3:" Sc. did not exceed R."
,k52b_4:" Since one cannot be expected to be liable for a single clause of a <i>kethubah</i> more than for the total amount of the <i>kethubah</i>. [Isaiah Trani: The amount of the <i>kethubah</i> here denotes the extra jointure in addition to the statutory two hundred and one hundred <i>zuz</i>]."
,k52b_5:" A ruling which contradicts the implication of the first Baraitha that he must ransom her 'even though the cost of a captive's ransom exceeds the amount of her kethubah'."
,k52b_6:" The price of the ransom need not exceed either (a) the actual value of the woman or (b) the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>, whichever is the less."
,k52b_7:" Lit., 'behold it'."
,k52b_8:" Lit., 'she is healed'."
,k52b_9:" If, for instance, the woman is always ailing."
,k52b_10:" Lit., 'behold it'."
,k52b_11:" Palestine."
,k52b_12:" Tosef. Keth. IV."
,k52b_13:" Seeking advice on how to escape the constant drain on their resources."
,k52b_14:" Lit.,'go fix something for him, for a healer'. Since their liability would thereby become limited they would be entitled to deduct it from the woman's <i>kethubah</i>."
,k52b_15:" Lit., 'as'."
,k52b_16:" [H] lit., 'those who arrange (the pleas) before the judges'. It is forbidden for a judge to act, even indirectly, as legal adviser to one of the litigants, v. Aboth (Sonc. ed.) p. 6, n. 1."
,k52b_17:" When he gave his advice to his relatives."
,k52b_18:" Lit., 'and in the end what did he think?'"
,k52b_19:" Isa. LVIII, 7, teaching the obligation of assisting one's relatives."
,k52b_20:" A judge must subject himself to greater restrictions in order to be free from all possible suspicion of partiality."
,k52b_21:" As one of the clauses of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k52b_22:" Lit., 'that you will have from me'."
,k52b_23:" Who may be born from another wife. The effect of such a clause is that, if the woman predeceases her husband, her sons, on the death of their father (her husband), would inherit her <i>kethubah</i>, and they would recover it from their deceased father's estate, irrespective of the amount or size of the shares to which they are entitled like any of the other sons of the deceased. This clause is designated, as <i>'kethubath benin dikrin'</i> (<i>kethubah</i> of male children)."
,k52b_24:" V. p. 305, n. 13."
,k52b_25:" V. p. 305, n. 14."
,k52b_26:" Lit., 'to men'. This clause is designated as 'kethubath benan nukban' (<i>kethubah</i> of female children)."
,k52b_27:" As one of the clauses of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k52b_28:" Immediately after the last mentioned clause."
,k52b_29:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 305, n. is and text."
,k52b_30:" Sc. why should not the <i>kethubah</i>, which on the death of his wife is legally inherited by the husband, be regarded as a part of his general estate and so be equally divided between all his sons?"
,k52b_31:" By being assured that whatever dowry he may give to his daughter will remain the property of her own children and will not pass through her husband to the children of his other wives."
,k52b_32:" Lit., 'that a man may leap'."
,k52b_33:" So MS.M. Cur. edd. 'and he will write'."
,k52b_34:" Lit., 'is there a thing?'"
,k52b_35:" Cf. Num. XXVII, 8: If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter, from which it follows that if a man has a son his inheritance shall not pass unto his daughter."
,k52b_36:" Encouraging a father (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 306. n. 8) to give his daughter a liberal dowry and thus deprive his sons of property which Pentateuchally should in due course be inherited by them."
,k52b_37:" A father's duty to make liberal provision for his daughter."
,k52b_38:" Jer. XXIX, 6."
,k52b_39:" Lit., 'stand in his hand'. It is the man who approaches the woman, not the woman the man."
,k52b_40:" Since Scripture nevertheless advises fathers to give their daughters to husbands."
,k52b_41:" Lit., 'something'."
,k52b_42:" Lit., 'jump', 'leap'."
,k52b_43:" Must a father go on assigning a dowry for his daughter."
,k52b_44:" Since the <i>kethubah</i> for the male children was instituted in order to encourage a father to provide a liberal dowry for his daughter."
,k52b_45:" Sc. the dowry he gave her, which was included in her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k52b_46:" The statutory <i>kethubah</i> and any additional jointure her husband may have settled upon her."
,k52b_47:" Lit., 'and will not write'."
,k52b_48:" No father would be prepared to give a liberal dowry to a husband of his daughter who does not himself also allow the sons of that daughter to inherit what he had promised their mother."
,k52b_49:" Lit., 'wrote'."
,k52b_50:" Relating to the MALE CHILDREN. Lit., 'should write'."
,k52b_51:" Lit., 'did not write'."
,k52b_52:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 307, n. 16 mutatis mutandis."
,k52b_53:" Between the two kinds of kethubahs, since most kethubahs contain records of dowries (Rashi). All kethubahs must consequently include the MALE CHILDREN clause also."
,k52b_54:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 307, n. 10."
,k52b_55:" Of one wife who had no sons'"
,k52b_56:" Of another wife."
,k52b_57:" To her mother, as far as her <i>kethubah</i> is concerned. The same reason that applies to male children should equally apply to a daughter in the absence of sons. Why then was a 'male children' and not a similar 'female children' clause instituted?"
,k52b_58:" In which the term 'INHERIT' was used (cf. our Mishnah)."
,k52b_59:" No daughter may 'inherit' among sons."
,k52b_60:" Though she cannot be heir among sons (v. <i>supra</i> n. 8) she is well entitled, in the case of an ordinary inheritance, to be heir among daughters. Why then should she be deprived of her mother's <i>kethubah</i> (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 6. final clause)?"
,k52b_61:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 2."
,k52b_62:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 307, n. 10."
,k52b_63:" By the sons."
,k52b_64:" As stated <i>supra</i> 50a."
,k52b_65:" Which cannot be recovered from the movables of a deceased husband."
,k52b_66:" Just as the woman can collect her <i>kethubah</i> from mortgaged or sold property, so should the sons be able to recover it from such property, v. <i>infra</i> 55a."
,k52b_67:" And no sold or mortgaged property may be seized for an inheritance."
,k52b_68:" After the two 'male children' kethubahs had been paid (v. Mishnah <i>infra</i> 91a)."
,k52b_69:" Whereby the Pentateuchal law of inheritance could be carried out. Why then was it stated (l.c.) that the male children kethubahs are not recoverable in such a case?"
,k52b_70:" Who was his father-in-law (cf. <i>supra</i> 39b and Sanh. 14b). R. Papa's son married the sister of his father's wife."
,k52b_71:" Lit., 'for her'. This would include the fixing of the amount for the dowry she was to receive from her father."
,k52b_72:" Lit., 'he came; shewed himself to him'. "
}

txt:
<p>
Captives must not be ransomed for more than their value, in the interests of the public.<a id="k52b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [This then implies] that they must be ransomed for their actual value even though the cost of a captive's ransom<a id="k52b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; exceeds the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>. Has not, however, the contrary been taught: [If a woman] was taken captive, and a demand was made upon her husband for as much as ten times the amount of her <i>kethubah</i><a id="k52b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he must ransom her the first time. Subsequently, however, he ransoms her only if he desires to do so but need not ransom her if he does not wish to do so. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: If the price of her ransom corresponded to the amount of her <i>kethubah</i>, he must ransom her; if not, he<a id="k52b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; need not ransom her?<a id="k52b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel upholds two lenient rules.<a id="k52b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SHE SUSTAINED AN INJURY IT IS HIS DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR HER MEDICAL TREATMENT. Our Rabbis taught: A widow is to be maintained from [her husband's] orphans' estate; and if she requires medical treatment, it is regarded<a id="k52b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; as maintenance. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: Medical treatment of a limited liability may be deducted<a id="k52b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; from her <i>kethubah</i> but one which has no limited liability<a id="k52b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is regarded<a id="k52b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; as maintenance. Said R. Johanan: Blood letting in the Land of Israel<a id="k52b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; was regarded as medical treatment of no limited liability.<a id="k52b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan's relatives had [to maintain] their father's wife who required daily medical treatment. When they came to R. Johanan<a id="k52b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he told them: Proceed to arrange with a medical man an inclusive fee.<a id="k52b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [Later, however], R. Johanan remarked: 'We have put ourselves [in the unenviable position] of<a id="k52b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; legal advisers'.<a id="k52b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; What, however, was his opinion at first,<a id="k52b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and why did he change it in the end!<a id="k52b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; At first he thought [of the Scriptural text,] And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh,<a id="k52b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but ultimately he realized [that the position of] a noted personality is different [from that of the general public].<a id="k52b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [A HUSBAND WHO] DID NOT GIVE HIS WIFE IN WRITING<a id="k52b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [THE FOLLOWING UNDERTAKING:] 'THE MALE CHILDREN THAT WILL BE BORN FROM OUR MARRIAGE<a id="k52b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; SHALL INHERIT THE MONEY OF THY <I>KETHUBAH</I> IN ADDITION TO THEIR SHARES WITH THEIR BROTHERS',<a id="k52b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE, BECAUSE [THIS CLAUSE] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY <I>BETH DIN</I>. [THOUGH HE DID NOT GIVE HIS WIFE IN WRITING<a id="k52b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; THE UNDERTAKING:] 'THE FEMALE CHILDREN THAT WILL BE BORN FROM OUR MARRIAGE<a id="k52b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; SHALL DWELL IN MY HOUSE AND BE MAINTAINED OUT OF MY ESTATE UNTIL THEY SHALL BE TAKEN IN MAKRIAGE'<a id="k52b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE, BECAUSE [THIS CLAUSE] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY <I>BETH DIN</I>. [SIMILARLY IF HE DID NOT GIVE HIS WIFE THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING:]<a id="k52b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; 'YOU SHALL DWELL IN MY HOUSE AND BE MAINTAINED THEREIN OUT OF MY ESTATE THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF YOUR WIDOWHOOD', HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE, BECAUSE [THIS CLAUSE ALSO] IS A CONDITION LAID DOWN BY <I>BETH DIN</I>. SO DID THE MEN OF JERUSALEM WRITE. THE MEN OF GALILEE WROTE IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE MEN OF JERUSALEM. THE MEN OF JUDAEA, HOWEVER, USED TO WRITE:<a id="k52b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 'UNTIL THE HEIRS MAY CONSENT TO PAY YOU YOUR KETHUBAH'. THE HEIRS, CONSEQUENTLY, MAY, IF THEY WISH TO DO IT, PAY HER HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> AND DISMISS HER.
<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Why was the <i>kethubah</i> for MALE CHILDREN<a id="k52b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; instituted?<a id="k52b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; In order that any man might thereby<a id="k52b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; be encouraged<a id="k52b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; to give<a id="k52b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; to his daughter as much as to his son. But is such a regulation found anywhere else?<a id="k52b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing that the All-Merciful ordained that a son shall be heir; a daughter shall not',<a id="k52b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; would the Rabbis proceed to make a provision<a id="k52b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; whereby a daughter shall be the heir? &mdash; This<a id="k52b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; also has Scriptural sanction, for it is written, Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters,' and take wives far your sans, and give your daughters to husbands;<a id="k52b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; [now the advice to take wives for one's] sons is quite intelligible [since such marriages are] within a father's power<a id="k52b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; but [as to the giving of] one's daughters [the difficulty arises:] Is [such giving] within his power?<a id="k52b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [Consequently<a id="k52b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; it must be] this that we were taught: That a father must provide for his daughter clothing and covering and must also give her a dowry<a id="k52b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; so that people may be anxious to woo<a id="k52b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; her and so proceed to marry her. And to what extent?<a id="k52b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; Both Abaye and Raba ruled: Up to a tenth of his wealth. But might it not be suggested<a id="k52b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [that the sons] should inherit [what their mother received] from her father<a id="k52b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; but not [that which was due to her] from her husband?<a id="k52b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If that were so, a father also would abstain from assigning<a id="k52b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; [a liberal dowry for his daughter].<a id="k52b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; May it then be suggested<a id="k52b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; that where her father had assigned a dowry<a id="k52b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; her husband must also enter the clause<a id="k52b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; but where her father did not assign any dowry<a id="k52b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; her husband also need not enter the clause?<a id="k52b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis drew no distinction.<a id="k52b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; But should not then<a id="k52b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; a daughter<a id="k52b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; among sons<a id="k52b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; also be heir?<a id="k52b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis have treated [the <i>kethubah</i>]<a id="k52b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; like an inheritance.<a id="k52b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; But should not then a daughter<a id="k52b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; among the other daughters<a id="k52b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; be heir?<a id="k52b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis made no distinction.<a id="k52b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then<a id="k52b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; is not [the <i>kethubah</i>] recoverable<a id="k52b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; from movables also?<a id="k52b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis treated it like the [statutory] <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k52b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then should not distraint be made on sold or mortgaged property?<a id="k52b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The expression] we learned [was] SHALL INHERIT.<a id="k52b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; May it then<a id="k52b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; be suggested [that It Is recoverable] even if there was no surplus<a id="k52b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; of a <i>denar</i>?<a id="k52b_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis have made no enactment where the Pentateuchal law of inheritance would thereby be uprooted. R. Papa was making arrangements for his son to be married into the house of Abba of Sura.<a id="k52b_70"><sup>70</sup></a>&nbsp; He went there to write the <i>kethubah</i> for the bride.<a id="k52b_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; When Judah b. Meremar heard [of his arrival] he went out to welcome him.<a id="k52b_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; When, however, they reached the door [of the bride's father's house] he asked leave to depart, when [R. Papa] said to him, 'Will the Master come in with me?'
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k55a_1:" Of the estate of the husband after his death. As the statutory <i>kethubah</i> cannot be recovered from such amelioration (v. Bek. 5lb) so cannot the additional jointure either."
,k55a_2:" A woman must take an oath in respect of her additional jointure in all cases where she takes an oath in respect of her statutory <i>kethubah</i> (<i>infra</i> 87a)."
,k55a_3:" In which all debts must be released (v. Deut. XV. Iff) but not the obligation of a <i>kethubah</i> (v. Git. 48b). The exemption applies to both the statutory <i>kethubah</i> and the additional jointure."
,k55a_4:" And left any fraction of land for his wife. Thereby she loses her <i>kethubah</i> (v. B.B. 132a) and her additional jointure also."
,k55a_5:" These restriction apply to the additional jointure as well as to the statutory <i>kethubah</i> (v. Git. 48b)."
,k55a_6:" She may claim her <i>kethubah</i> within twenty-five years only (v. <i>infra</i> 104a). This applies also to her additional jointure. There is no time limit in the case of a widow who lives in her late husband's house."
,k55a_7:" The children are entitled to their mother's additional jointure just as they are entitled to her statutory <i>kethubah</i> and to the dowry, which her father gave to her husband on the occasion of their marriage, and which also forms a part of the <i>kethubah</i> obligations of a husband."
,k55a_8:" V. Mishnah <i>supra</i> 52b."
,k55a_9:" [H] (lit., 'mouth of Beditha', one of the canals of the Euphrates), was a Babylonian town famous as a Jewish centre of learning."
,k55a_10:" Of the widow's late husband."
,k55a_11:" One inherits free assets only."
,k55a_12:" Lit., 'sons of'."
,k55a_13:" [H] is a suburb of Sura in Babylonia."
,k55a_14:" Instead of they shall inherit'. This implies that the children are entitled to the <i>kethubah</i> as a gift made to them by their father at the time of his marriage with the right to seize his property wherever it may be found."
,k55a_15:" Pledged by a husband for the <i>kethubah</i> of his wife."
,k55a_16:" At the time of the man's death."
,k55a_17:" By the widow who, in other circumstances, is required to take an oath to the effect that her late husband had not given her some money or objects of value as a security for her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k55a_18:" Since it is definitely known what objects of value had been set aside for her kethuhah there is no reason to suspect that any other objects or money also had been secretly deposited with her."
,k55a_19:" If, e.g., they were lost."
,k55a_20:" From the landed property of the deceased, since all of it is legally pledged for the <i>kethubah</i> of one's wife."
,k55a_21:" Lit., 'sons'."
,k55a_22:" As a special security for her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k55a_23:" When her husband dies."
,k55a_24:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 325, n. 14, mutatis mutandis."
,k55a_25:" V. <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 13."
,k55a_26:" As only one of the four boundaries had been indicated the plot of land cannot be regarded as a definite security, and the suspicion may be entertained that her husband may have given her some private deposit as a security for her <i>kethubah</i> (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 325, n. 13)."
,k55a_27:" E.g., of a gift of land."
,k55a_28:" Lit., 'to him'."
,k55a_29:" Before the deed is written (Rashi)."
,k55a_30:" Whether his instructions were seriously meant or whether he has not since changed his mind (cf. Rashi). According to some authorities the consultation relates to the question of entering a clause pledging the donor's property (cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H])."
,k55a_31:" Whose opinion in our Mishnah is based on the assumption that THE MAN PROMISED&nbsp;&hellip; WITH THE SOLE OBJECT etc."
,k55a_32:" Wherever a man did not specify his intention or motive."
,k55a_33:" Cur. edd. read 'R. Nathan'. In Hul. 75b the reading is 'R. Jonathan', and in Men. 30b 'R. Johanan'."
,k55a_34:" Who gave instructions for a letter of divorce to be written for his wife. The document may be delivered to the woman, even though its delivery was not mentioned in the instructions, because it is assumed that the dying man intended it for this purpose (v. Git. 65b). "
}

txt:
<p>
in respect of amelioration,<a id="k55a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; an oath,<a id="k55a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Sabbatical year,<a id="k55a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of him who assigned all his property to his sons,<a id="k55a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; or the recovery of payment out of real estate and from the worst part of it,<a id="k55a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; also in respect of [the law of a widow] while in her father's house,<a id="k55a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and of the <i>kethubah</i> for male children.<a id="k55a_7"><sup>7</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	It was stated: The <i>kethubah</i> for the male children,<a id="k55a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [the scholars of] Pumbeditha<a id="k55a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled, may not be collected from sold or mortgaged property,<a id="k55a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; for we have learned,<a id="k55a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'They shall inherit';<a id="k55a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and the scholars of<a id="k55a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Matha Mehasia<a id="k55a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled: It may be collected from sold or mortgaged property, for we have learned,<a id="k55a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'They shall take'.<a id="k55a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The law, however, is that it may not be collected from sold or mortgaged property, since we have learned,<a id="k55a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'They shall inherit'.<a id="k55a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Movables<a id="k55a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; which are available<a id="k55a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [may be collected]<a id="k55a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; without an oath;<a id="k55a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they are not available,<a id="k55a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [the <i>kethubah</i> may, the scholars of] Pumbeditha ruled, [be collected]<a id="k55a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; without an oath<a id="k55a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and the scholars<a id="k55a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; of Matha Mehasia ruled: Only with an oath. The law [is that they may be collected] without an oath. 
</p><p>
	If [her husband] has set aside for her a plot of land [defining it] by its four boundaries<a id="k55a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [she<a id="k55a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; may collect from it] without an oath;<a id="k55a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but if [he only defined it] by one boundary, [the scholars of] Pumbeditha ruled [that collection<a id="k55a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; may be made from it] without an oath,<a id="k55a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but the scholars of Matha Mehasia ruled: Only with an oath.<a id="k55a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; The law, however, is that collection<a id="k55a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; may be effected without an oath.<a id="k55a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man said to witnesses, 'Write out [a deed],<a id="k55a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; sign it and give it to a certain person',<a id="k55a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and they took from him symbolic possession there is no need<a id="k55a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; to consult him.<a id="k55a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [If, however,] no symbolic possession was taken, [the scholars of] Pumbeditha ruled, there is no need<a id="k55a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; to consult him,<a id="k55a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but the scholars of Matha Mehasia ruled: It is necessary to consult him. The law is that it is necessary to consult him. 
</p><p>
	R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH etc. It was stated: Rab and R. Nathan [differed]. One maintained that the <i>halachah</i> was in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah and the other maintained that the <i>halachah</i> was not in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. You may conclude that it was R. Nathan who maintained that the <i>halachah</i> was in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah<a id="k55a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; since R. Nathan was heard [elsewhere] to follow [the rule of] assumption,<a id="k55a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k55a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; having stated that the <i>halachah</i> was in agreement with R. Simeon Shezuri in the case of a man dangerously ill<a id="k55a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k55b_1:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k55b_2:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k55b_3:" V. Dem. IV, 1. In this as in the previous case the rule of assumption is followed. Cf. p. 326, n. 10."
,k55b_4:" Who distributed all his estate. V. B.B. Sonc. ed. p. 658. n. 2. The verbal assignment of a dying man is valid and requires no deed or formal acquisition."
,k55b_5:" The recipient."
,k55b_6:" I.e., his claim has a double force: That of the gift of a dying man and that of legal acquisition. [H], pl. of [H] 'a harnessed or galloping horse'."
,k55b_7:" Owing to the symbolic acquisition that took place."
,k55b_8:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 3."
,k55b_9:" Lit., 'my loan', a debt which someone owes him."
,k55b_10:" Although the money was not at that time in his possession and the gift was not made in the presence of the three parties concerned (v. B.B. 144a)."
,k55b_11:" By the unnecessary symbolic acquisition. V. <i>infra</i> n. 12."
,k55b_12:" The donee."
,k55b_13:" Not merely by virtue of the legal validity of his instructions (v. <i>supra</i> note 3)."
,k55b_14:" Hence it was difficult for Samuel to give a decision on the matter (v. B.B. Sonc. ed. p. 658, n. 11). As Rab, however, definitely ruled in favour of the donee on the assumption that the donor 'made him ride on two harnessed horses', it follows that Rab is guided by the rule of assumption. How then could it be implied <i>supra</i> that it was Rab who held that the <i>halachah</i> was not in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. "
}

txt:
<p>
and in that of <i>terumah</i><a id="k55b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of the tithe of <i>demai</i><a id="k55b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; produce.<a id="k55b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But does not Rab, however, follow [the rule of] assumption? Surely it was stated: As to the gift of a dying man<a id="k55b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [in the deed of] which was recorded [symbolic] acquisition, the school of Rab in the name of Rab reported [that the testator] has [thereby] made him<a id="k55b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; ride on two harnessed horses;<a id="k55b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but Samuel said: I do not know what decision to give on the matter. 'The school of Rab in the name of Rab reported [that the testator] has [thereby] made him ride on two harnessed horses', for it is like the gift of a man in good health,<a id="k55b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is also like the gift of a dying man.<a id="k55b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'It is like the gift of a man in good health', in that, if he recovered, he cannot retract,<a id="k55b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'it is like the gift of a dying man' in that, if he said that his loan<a id="k55b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [shall be given] to X, his loan [is to he given] to X.<a id="k55b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'But Samuel said: I do not know what decision to give on the matter', since it is possible that he<a id="k55b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; decided not to transfer possession to him<a id="k55b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; except through the deed,<a id="k55b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and no [possession by means of a] deed [may be acquired] after [the testator's] death!<a id="k55b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k56a_1:" Rah and R. Nathan."
,k56a_2:" l.e., that it was in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah."
,k56a_3:" Cf. preceding note, mutatis mutandis."
,k56a_4:" The statement <i>supra</i> against R. Eleazar b. Azariah."
,k56a_5:" In promising his bride an additional sum in her <I>kethubah</I>."
,k56a_6:" Between him and his bride."
,k56a_7:" Even though no marriage has taken place. The woman is, therefore, entitled to the full sum she had been promised. Hence the statement (which has been ascribed to Rab) against the ruling of R. Eleazar b. Azariah."
,k56a_8:" Following the reading of Ber. 30b BaH adds 'the Bible teacher'."
,k56a_9:" [I.e., Go teach the Bible to children instead of venturing into the realms of the <i>halachah</i>. Bible instructions were given in a place 'outside' the academy]."
,k56a_10:" Rab (v. Rashi) or Rabbi, i.e., R. Judah the Patriarch (v. Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H]). According to Tosaf, the speaker here was the first R. Isaac b. Abdimi who was a disciple of Rabbi (cf. Shab. 4ob) and a teacher of Rab (cf. B.B. 87a and Hul. 110a)."
,k56a_11:" According to R. Eleazar b. Azariah's views in our Mishnah."
,k56a_12:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The legal and final union that may be regarded as marriage."
,k56a_13:" Huppah v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> And the bride is consequently entitled to the full amount of the statutory, and the additional kethuhah."
,k56a_14:" And since this has not taken place the bride can only claim the statutory minimum."
,k56a_15:" Lit., 'wrote'."
,k56a_16:" Lit., 'there is'."
,k56a_17:" Why then did R. Joseph mention 'night'?"
,k56a_18:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">In the day time</font>. V. <i>infra</i> 65b, Shab. 86a."
,k56a_19:" R. Joseph. V. <i>supra</i> n. 5."
,k56a_20:" Lit., 'the way of the earth'."
,k56a_21:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 5."
,k56a_22:" Lit., 'stands for'."
,k56a_23:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Is the bride entitled to the additional jointure of her <I>kethubah</I>?</font> Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 328, n. 9."
,k56a_24:" The bridegroom dying before intercourse had taken place. Intercourse with a menstruant is Pentateuchally forbidden. (Cf. Lev. XVIII, 19)."
,k56a_25:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 328, n. 10."
,k56a_26:" Lit., 'suitable'."
,k56a_27:" Cf. p. 329, n. 12. The bride would consequently have no claim upon the additional sum she was promised."
,k56a_28:" The bride being entitled in either case to the full amount."
,k56a_29:" By a creditor to whom part of a debt was repaid; and consequently there is no need to exchange the bond for one in which the balance only is entered."
,k56a_30:" The creditor."
,k56a_31:" In which only the balance of the original debt is entered while the first bond is destroyed. The debtor cannot be compelled to accept a quittance which he would have 'to guard from mice' and the loss of which might involve him in a claim for the repayment of the full loan. It is more equitable that the creditor should change the bond."
,k56a_32:" The creditor."
,k56a_33:" B.B. 170b. Such a course is advantageous to the creditor, since a bond entitles its holder to seize any real estate which the debtor has sold or mortgaged after, but not before the date of his bond. Were a new bond for the balance to be written, the creditor would lose his right to seize any of the debtor's property that was sold or mortgaged between the date of the original bond and that of the new one. In the opinion of R. Jose the rights of the creditor must not be impaired, while in the opinion of R Judah equity demands that the debtor be not encumbered with the necessity of taking care of the quittance (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 6). How then could it be stated here that R. Judah allowed the writing of a quittance?"
,k56a_34:" I.e., is entered on the <I>kethubah</I> itself, so that the husband, unlike the debtor spoken of in B.B., has no need to preserve any document."
,k56a_35:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9."
,k56a_36:" The case of the payment of the part of a debt."
,k56a_37:" For R. Judah."
,k56a_38:" The creditor."
,k56a_39:" In our Mishnah."
,k56a_40:" So MS.M. reading [H]."
,k56a_41:" She received no money at all from her husband."
,k56a_42:" Lit., 'he preserved it'."
,k56a_43:" In our Mishnah."
,k56a_44:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 330, n. 9."
,k56a_45:" The case of the <I>kethubah</I>."
,k56a_46:" A debt, for instance, where R. Judah does not allow it (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 330, n. 6)."
,k56a_47:" From the payment of the part of the <I>kethubah</I> which his wife has surrendered (v. our Mishnah)."
,k56a_48:" Lit., 'she wrote for him'."
,k56a_49:" Since our Mishnah speaks of writing."
,k56a_50:" Even though it deprives a person from a right to which he is Pentateuchally entitled."
,k56a_51:" The formula of marriage used by the bridegroom is, 'Behold thou art consecrated unto me by this ring according to the law of Moses and Israel'."
,k56a_52:" Becomes his lawful wife."
,k56a_53:" Since it is contrary to the law of the Torah. Cf Ex. XXI, 10."
,k56a_54:" B.M 51a, 94a, B.B. 226b"
,k56a_55:" Not Pentateuchal."
,k56a_56:" Sc. the Rabbis."
,k56a_57:" In order to prevent laxity."
,k56a_58:" The laws of the Torah, being universally respected, required no such additional restrictions."
,k56a_59:" <i>Melog</i> property (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) to the fruit of which a husband is entitled during his lifetime while the property itself remains the possession of his wife."
,k56a_60:" A husband being allowed to surrender his right to the usufruct."
,k56a_61:" A husband who renounced his claim to the fruit of <i>melog</i> property."
,k56a_62:" The fruit produced by lands that were purchased out of the proceeds of the fruit of the original property."
,k56a_63:" Lit., 'judgment and words'."
,k56a_64:" <i>Infra</i> 83a. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; The fact, however, is that both<a id="k56a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; follow [the rule of] assumption; and he who stated that the <i>halachah</i> [was so]<a id="k56a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; was well justified, [while in respect of] him who stated that the <i>halachah</i> was not [so],<a id="k56a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be explained that] here<a id="k56a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; also [the ruling is based on] an assumption, that the man's object<a id="k56a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [it is assumed] was the formation of a mutual attachment,<a id="k56a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and such attachment has indeed been formed.<a id="k56a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanina<a id="k56a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; once sat in the presence of R. Jannai when he stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. [The Master] said to him, 'Go Out' read your Biblical verses outside;<a id="k56a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah'.
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated in the name of our Master:<a id="k56a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman in his own name, however, stated that the <i>halachah</i> was not in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah, while the Nehardeans stated in the name of R. Nahman that the <i>halachah</i> was in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. And though R. Nahman uttered a curse, proclaiming, 'Such and such a fate shall befall every judge who gives a ruling in agreement with the opinion of R. Eleazar b. Azariah', the <i>halachah</i> is nevertheless in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
</p><p>
	And the <i>halachah</i> in practice is in accordance with the Opinion of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
</p><p>
	Rabin enquired: What is the law<a id="k56a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; where the bride only entered the bridal chamber but there was no intercourse? Is the <I>kinyan</I><a id="k56a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>



    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E144"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/144.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 144<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">



effected by the affectionate attachment in the bridal chamber<a id="k56a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; or is the <I>kinyan</I> effected by the affectionate attachment of the intercourse?<a id="k56a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear what R. Joseph learnt: 'Because he assigned<a id="k56a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it to her only on account of the affectionate attachment of the first night'. Now, if you grant that it is the affectionate attachment in the bridal chamber that effects the <I>kinyan</I> it was correct for him to state 'the first night'. If, however, you contend that it is the affectionate attachment of the intercourse that effects the <I>kinyan</I>, does this [it may be objected, first] take place on the first night only and not subsequently? &mdash; What then [do you suggest]? The [affectionate attachment in the] bridal chamber? Is the bridal chamber [it may be retorted] entered<a id="k56a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in the night only and not in the day time!<a id="k56a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But according to your argument <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">does intercourse take place at night and not in the day time</font>? Surely <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Raba stated: If one was in a dark room [intercourse] is permitted!</font><a id="k56a_18"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">18</font></sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is no difficulty. <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">He<a id="k56a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; may have taught us that it is proper conduct<a id="k56a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; that intercourse should be at night</font>; but [if it is maintained that it is the affectionate attachment in the] bridal chamber [that effects the <I>kinyan</I>] the difficulty arises!<a id="k56a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The assumption that <I>kinyan</I> is effected in the] bridal chamber also presents no difficulty. Since, usually, <font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">the bridal chamber is a prelude to<a id="k56a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; intercourse</font> he taught us that it was proper that [it should be entered] at night.
</p><p>
	<font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">R. Ashi enquired: What is the law<a id="k56a_23"><sup><font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">23</font></sup></a>&nbsp; where [a bride] entering the bridal chamber became menstruous?</font><a id="k56a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; If you should find [some reason] for saying that it is the affectionate attachment in the bridal chamber that effects the <I>kinyan</I><a id="k56a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [the question still remains whether this applies only to] a bridal chamber that is a prelude<a id="k56a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; to intercourse but not to a bridal chamber that is no prelude to intercourse,<a id="k56a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; or is there perhaps no difference?<a id="k56a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This remains unanswered.
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAID: IF [A HUSBAND] WISHES HE MAY WRITE OUT FOR A VIRGIN etc. Does R. Judah hold the opinion that a quittance is written?<a id="k56a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely we learned: If a person repaid part of his debt, R. Judah said, he<a id="k56a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; must exchange [the bond for another].<a id="k56a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose said: He<a id="k56a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; must write a quittance for him!<a id="k56a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jeremiah replied: [Here it is a case] where the quittance is [written] within.<a id="k56a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye replied: You may even say [that here it is a case] where the quittance is not written within.<a id="k56a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; There<a id="k56a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; it is quite correct<a id="k56a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [to disallow the use of a quittance, since the debtor] had undoubtedly repaid him<a id="k56a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is possible that the quittance might be lost and that he<a id="k56a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; would produce the bond and thus collect [the paid portion of the debt] a second time. Here,<a id="k56a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; however, did he indeed give her anything?<a id="k56a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; It is a mere statement that she addressed to him.<a id="k56a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; If, then, he preserved [the quittance] well and good;<a id="k56a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; and if he did not preserve it, well, it is he himself who is the cause of his own loss. One can well understand why Abaye did not give the explanation as R. Jeremiah, since it was not stated<a id="k56a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; that the quittance was entered within,<a id="k56a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; but why did not R. Jeremiah give the same explanation as Abaye? &mdash; The quittance here<a id="k56a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden as a preventive measure against the [erroneous permitting of] a quittance elsewhere.<a id="k56a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The reason [for the husband's exemption<a id="k56a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; is apparently] because she gave him a quittance in writing.<a id="k56a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, [she had surrendered a portion of her <I>kethubah</I>] by word of mouth only [he would] not [have been exempt];<a id="k56a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; but why? This,<a id="k56a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, is a monetary matter, and R. Judah was heard to rule that in a monetary matter one's stipulation<a id="k56a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; is valid. For was it not taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Behold thou art consecrated unto me<a id="k56a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; on condition that thou shalt have no [claim] upon me [for] food, raiment or conjugal rights', she is consecrated,<a id="k56a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; but the stipulation is null;<a id="k56a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; so R. Meir. R. Judah, however, said: In respect of monetary matters his stipulation is valid?<a id="k56a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Judah is of the opinion that the <I>kethubah</I> is a Rabbinical enactment,<a id="k56a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Sages<a id="k56a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; have applied to their enactments<a id="k56a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; higher restrictions than to those of the Torah.<a id="k56a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; But what of the case of usufruct<a id="k56a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; which is a Rabbinical law and the Rabbis nevertheless did not apply any restriction to it;<a id="k56a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; for we learned: R. Judah said, He<a id="k56a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; may for all time eat the fruit of the fruit<a id="k56a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; unless he wrote out for her [the undertaking], 'I have no claim whatsoever<a id="k56a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; upon your estates and their produce and the produce of their produce for ever';<a id="k56a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k56b_1:" In R. Judah's statement."
,k56b_2:" Lit., 'what writes? says'. Which proves that, according to R. Judah no restrictions were made even in the case of a Rabbinical law."
,k56b_3:" About whose imported produce it is uncertain whether it has been tithed (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>Demai</i>). Such produce is only Rabbinically forbidden."
,k56b_4:" I.e., it had not been duly tithed."
,k56b_5:" <i>Demai</i> IV, 7, v. <i>supra</i> p. 131 notes. Which shows that, according to R. Judah, no restriction was imposed even on a Rabbinically forbidden produce. (Cf. <i>supra</i> note 8)."
,k56b_6:" Lit., 'a certainty of their words'."
,k56b_7:" As in the case of <i>demai</i> where the prohibition is due to the uncertainty whether or not the produce had been tithed."
,k56b_8:" The Rabbis, though they applied restriction even in cases where their prohibition was due merely to an uncertainty."
,k56b_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The uncertainty here is so great, since most people even among the 'amme ha-'arez (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. 'Am ha-'arez) do give tithe, that no restrictions were applied to it."
,k56b_10:" Since the expression used is not 'if the virgin received less'."
,k56b_11:" While the woman in fact receives the full amount of her <I>kethubah</I>."
,k56b_12:" R. Meir."
,k56b_13:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2. Lit., 'and there is to her'."
,k56b_14:" [Lit., 'and since'. The text is not smooth. MS.M. preserves a better reading 'but since she had (a full <I>kethubah</I>) what is the reason (of R. Meir)?' &mdash; Since he said to her etc.]."
,k56b_15:" The virgin who is entitled to two hundred <i>zuz</i>."
,k56b_16:" One hundred <i>zuz</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k56b_17:" [Lit., 'her mind does not rest, rely upon', i.e., she contracted her marriage on the expectation of a <I>kethubah</I> of a smaller amount than the prescribed minimum.]"
,k56b_18:" [Since the marriage was not performed in accordance with the requirements of the law, it is regarded as an act of prostitution.]"
,k56b_19:" Lit., 'whoever makes a stipulation'."
,k56b_20:" Lit., 'his stipulatlon'."
,k56b_21:" Since he mentions the Torah only."
,k56b_22:" As a <I>kethubah</I> is an enactment of the Rabbis (v. R. Judah's view <i>supra</i> 56a), why is the stipulation void?"
,k56b_23:" As her <I>kethubah</I>."
,k56b_24:" Lit., 'behold this'."
,k56b_25:" The stipulation being valid even if the woman's surrender of her right was only verbal."
,k56b_26:" Contrary to the opinion of R. Jose, R. Judah maintains that a verbal stipulation or undertaking against a Rabbinical measure is of no validity."
,k56b_27:" Half a <i>maneh</i>."
,k56b_28:" I.e., one where the <I>kethubah</I> amounts to less than the prescribed minimum."
,k56b_29:" Lit., 'because of making the world right'. Movable objects may be easily lost and do not provide a reliable security for the <I>kethubah</I>."
,k56b_30:" Lit., 'there is in this'."
,k56b_31:" Movable objects."
,k56b_32:" While a <I>kethubah</I> must always amount to a legally fixed minimum."
,k56b_33:" Wherein, then, does R. Jose differ from him?"
,k56b_34:" The first Tanna."
,k56b_35:" That movable property provides no security for a <I>kethubah</I>."
,k56b_36:" The husband."
,k56b_37:" For the loss of the movable property."
,k56b_38:" The possibility of deterioration in value being disregarded by the first Tanna."
,k56b_39:" Movable objects."
,k56b_40:" R. Jose is consequently of the opinion that it is not only against loss but also against a diminution in value that provision must be made."
,k56b_41:" Where movable objects are assigned as a security."
,k56b_42:" Lit., 'perhaps they diminish'."
,k56b_43:" Where the husband definitely assigned no more than half of the legal maximum."
,k56b_44:" V. <i>supra</i> note 14."
,k56b_45:" That the value would be diminished."
,k56b_46:" Lit., 'that she shall forgive' or 'surrender'."
,k56b_47:" That her husband has contracted for a sum less than her due. "
}

txt:
<p>
and it had been established that by 'writing'<a id="k56b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; only saying was meant!<a id="k56b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: All [married women] have a <I>kethubah</I>; not all, however, have fruit. In respect of what is usual the Rabbis have applied restrictions. In respect of what is not usual, however, the Rabbis have made no restrictions.
</p><p>
	But what of the case of ass-drivers<a id="k56b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; which is a common occurrence and the Rabbis have nevertheless applied no restrictions to it; for we learned: Where ass-drivers entered a town and one of them declared, 'My [produce] is new and that of my fellow is old' or 'Mine is not fit for use<a id="k56b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but that of my fellow is fit', they are not believed; but R. Judah said, They are believed!<a id="k56b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: To any Rabbinical enactment of an absolute character<a id="k56b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis have applied further restrictions, but to any Rabbinical enactment of uncertain origin<a id="k56b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis have added no further restrictions. Raba replied: They<a id="k56b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; relaxed the law in respect of <i>demai</i>.<a id="k56b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. MEIR RULED&nbsp;&hellip; ANY MAN WHO&nbsp;&hellip; GIVE&nbsp;&hellip; LESS etc. The expression, 'WHO&nbsp;&hellip; GIVE&nbsp;&hellip; LESS' [implies]<a id="k56b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; even [if the assignment remained a mere] stipulation.<a id="k56b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus it follows that he<a id="k56b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that the man's stipulation is void and that the woman receives [her full <I>kethubah</I>];<a id="k56b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; yet since<a id="k56b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the man had said to her<a id="k56b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 'You will have but a maneh',<a id="k56b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; her mind is not at ease<a id="k56b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and his intercourse is regarded as an act of prostitution.<a id="k56b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely, R. Meir was heard to rule that any stipulation<a id="k56b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; which is contrary to what is written in the Torah is<a id="k56b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; null and void, [from which it may be inferred,<a id="k56b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; may it not, that if it is] but against a law of the Rabbis it is<a id="k56b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; valid?<a id="k56b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Meir holds the view that the <I>kethubah</I> is a Pentateuchal institution.
</p><p>
	It was taught: R. Meir ruled, If any man assigns to a virgin<a id="k56b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; a sum less than two hundred <i>zuz</i> or to a widow less than a <i>maneh</i> his marriage is regarded as<a id="k56b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; an act of prostitution. R. Jose ruled: One is permitted [to contract such a marriage].<a id="k56b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah ruled: If the man wished he may write out for a virgin a bond for two hundred <i>zuz</i> while she writes<a id="k56b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; for him, 'I have received from you a maneh'; and [he may write a bond] for a widow for a <i>maneh</i> while she writes<a id="k56b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; for him, 'I have received from you fifty zuz'.<a id="k56b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Is R. Jose then of the opinion that 'one is permitted [to contract such a marriage]'?<a id="k56b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; This surely is contrary [to the following:] A woman's <I>kethubah</I> may not be made [a charge on] movable property as a social measure.<a id="k56b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Jose: What social measure is this?<a id="k56b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; Their<a id="k56b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; price, surely, is not fixed and they deteriorate in value.<a id="k56b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, did not the first Tanna also say that [a <I>kethubah</I>] may not be made [a charge on movable property]?<a id="k56b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Must he<a id="k56b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; not, consequently, have meant to say: This<a id="k56b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only where he<a id="k56b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; accepted no responsibility;<a id="k56b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but where he accepted responsibility<a id="k56b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [the <I>kethubah</I>] may be made [a charge upon them].<a id="k56b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon came R. Jose to question: Even If he<a id="k56b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; did accept responsibility how [could the <I>kethubah</I> be] made [a charge upon them]<a id="k56b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; when their price, surely, is not fixed and they deteriorate in value.<a id="k56b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if there,<a id="k56b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; where the diminution in value [of the movables] is only a possibility,<a id="k56b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose provides against it, would he not even more so [adopt a similar course] here<a id="k56b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; where the diminution [of the <I>kethubah</I>] is a certainty? &mdash; How now! There<a id="k56b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; she did not know it<a id="k56b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; to think of surrendering her rights;<a id="k56b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; but here she was well aware [of the fact]<a id="k56b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and has definitely surrendered her rights.
</p><p>
	The sister of Rami b. Hama was married to R. Iwia
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k57a_1:" I.e., the written marriage contract. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k57a_2:" To obtain his ruling on the question whether she may continue to live with her husband without the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k57a_3:" That living with a wife whose <i>kethubah</i> is less than the prescribed minimum, and much more so with one who has no <i>kethubah</i> at all, is regarded as mere prostitution, even though the woman remained legally entitled to collect the full amount of her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k57a_4:" Who holds that since the woman is not absolutely certain that she will obtain the full amount of her <i>kethubah</i> (either in the case, <i>supra</i>, because she believes the man's stipulation to be valid or, in this case, because she has no document to prove her claim) it can only be regarded as an act of prostitution (v. <i>supra</i> p. 333, n. 8)."
,k57a_5:" I.e., for any length of time. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l."
,k57a_6:" R. Joseph."
,k57a_7:" The Rabbinical restrictions he added to those of the Torah."
,k57a_8:" A new marriage contract."
,k57a_9:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k57a_10:" Between R. Judah and R. Jose on the question whether a verbal renouncement of the woman is valid (<i>supra</i> 56b)."
,k57a_11:" This is explained <i>infra</i>."
,k57a_12:" By a mere verbal statement."
,k57a_13:" Since she has already acquired it. Only by means of a written quittance may her rights then be surrendered."
,k57a_14:" I.e., to the 'beginning' and 'end'."
,k57a_15:" Lit., 'what'."
,k57a_16:" R. Judah and R. Jose dispute only in respect of the period between the beginning and the conclusion of the meeting in the bridal chamber but agree that after intercourse the man's stipulation is invalid unless the woman has surrendered her rights in writing. It was, therefore, quite correct for R. Joshua b. Levi to state that 'at the end (i.e., of the intercourse), she cannot, according to the opinion of all, surrender (i.e., verbally) any part of her kethubah'."
,k57a_17:" To which the dispute indeed refers (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 335, n. 14)."
,k57a_18:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k57a_19:" V. <i>Supra</i> p. 335, nn. 8-10."
,k57a_20:" Since she has not yet legally acquired it."
,k57a_21:" Which corresponds to the termination of the meeting in the bridal chamber."
,k57a_22:" Whose reports appear contradictory."
,k57a_23:" Lit., 'what'."
,k57a_24:" R. Papa."
,k57a_25:" In view of R. Abbahu's definite statement R. Papa's remark seems pointless."
,k57a_26:" Unless there is proof to the contrary."
,k57a_27:" It is natural and legitimate for opinions to differ."
,k57a_28:" In which case one of the two must be definitely wrong since the view of the Amora which both of them claim to represent could not possibly have agreed with what both of them submit. Had not R. Abbahu's statement been authoritative, coming as it did from R. Johanan himself, R. Papa's submission would have been preferred to his."
,k57a_29:" After their betrothal."
,k57a_30:" Jewels and similar ornaments (v. Rashi)."
,k57a_31:" The preparations for the wedding dinner and the bridal chamber (v. ibid.)."
,k57a_32:" Who is presumed to be in the possession of some trinkets and jewellery from her first marriage."
,k57a_33:" Lit., 'the time arrived'."
,k57a_34:" Owing to the man's delay (v. <i>supra</i> 2b)."
,k57a_35:" The women."
,k57a_36:" Lit., 'they eat of his'."
,k57a_37:" Out of the proceeds of which she may buy unconsecrated food for consumption during the days of her Levitical uncleanness."
,k57a_38:" For consumption during her period of uncleanness."
,k57a_39:" For her use in her clean state."
,k57a_40:" [H], the brother of a deceased childless husband, whose duty it is to marry the widow."
,k57a_41:" Who became a widow while still betrothed."
,k57a_42:" Prior to their marriage (v. <i>supra</i> n. 12)."
,k57a_43:" As a betrothed virgin."
,k57a_44:" Of the period of twelve months that is granted to her."
,k57a_45:" Lit., 'in the presence of'."
,k57a_46:" I.e., in awaiting his marriage."
,k57a_47:" The twelve months."
,k57a_48:" [Isaiah Trani preserves a better reading, 'even if (she spent) all of them with the husband, less one day, or all of them with the levir]."
,k57a_49:" By virtue of her husband whose obligation to maintain her does not begin until the end of the twelve months, and even then terminates with his death."
,k57a_50:" That after THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED&nbsp;&hellip; THEY ARE ENTITLED&nbsp;&hellip; EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>."
,k57a_51:" Lit., 'first'."
,k57a_52:" Cf. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. 163, n. 7."
,k57a_53:" The authors of the earlier Mishnah. "
}

txt:
<p>
and her <i>kethubah</i><a id="k57a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; was lost. When they came before R. Joseph<a id="k57a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he said to them, Thus said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: This<a id="k57a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is the opinion of R. Meir,<a id="k57a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Sages ruled that a man may live with his wife without a <i>kethubah</i> for two or three years.<a id="k57a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him:<a id="k57a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Samuel that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Meir in his preventive measures?<a id="k57a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so, [the other replied] go and write one<a id="k57a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for her. 
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came<a id="k57a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who had it from Bar Kappara: The dispute<a id="k57a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to the beginning,<a id="k57a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but at the end<a id="k57a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; she cannot, according to the opinion of all, surrender<a id="k57a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [any portion of her <i>kethubah</i>].<a id="k57a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however stated that their dispute extended to both cases.<a id="k57a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Abbahu: [The following] was explained to me by R. Johanan: 'I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another. The "beginning" of which R. Joshua b. Levi spoke means<a id="k57a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the beginning of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and by the "end" was meant<a id="k57a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the termination of the intercourse;<a id="k57a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and when I stated that the dispute extended to both cases [I meant] the beginning [of the meeting in] the bridal chamber and the end of that meeting which is the beginning of the intercourse.'<a id="k57a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When Rabin came<a id="k57a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who had it from Bar Kappara. The dispute refers only to the end, but at the beginning she may, so is the opinion of all, renounce<a id="k57a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [any portion of her <i>kethubah</i>].<a id="k57a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, stated that their dispute extended to both cases. Said R. Abbahu: This was explained to me by R. Johanan: 'I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another. The "end" of which R. Joshua b. Levi spoke meant the end of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and by the "beginning" was meant the beginning of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber; and when I stated that the dispute extended to both cases [I meant] the beginning,<a id="k57a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and the termination of the intercourse.' 
</p><p>
	Said R. Papa: Had not R. Abbahu stated, 'This was explained to me by R. Johanan: "I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another"' I would have submitted that R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi were in dispute while R. Dimi and Rabin<a id="k57a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; were not in dispute. The 'end' of which Rabin spoke might mean<a id="k57a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the end of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and the 'beginning' of which R. Dimi spoke might mean<a id="k57a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the beginning of the intercourse.<a id="k57a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; What does he<a id="k57a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; teach us thereby?<a id="k57a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is this that he teaches us: [It is preferable to assume]<a id="k57a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; that two Amoraim differ in their own opinions<a id="k57a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; rather than that two Amoraim should differ as to what was the view of another Amora.<a id="k57a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A VIRGIN IS ALLOWED TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE [TIME HER INTENDED] HUSBAND CLAIMED HER,<a id="k57a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [IN WHICH] TO PREPARE HER MARRIAGE OUTFIT.<a id="k57a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; AND, AS [SUCH A PERIOD] IS ALLOWED FOR THE WOMAN, SO IS IT ALLOWED FOR THE MAN FOR HIS OUTFIT.<a id="k57a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR A WIDOW<a id="k57a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; THIRTY DAYS [ARE ALLOWED]. IF THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED<a id="k57a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEY WERE NOT MARRIED<a id="k57a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY<a id="k57a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE OUT OF THE MAN'S ESTATE<a id="k57a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [IF HE IS A PRIEST] MAY ALSO EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>. R. TARFON SAID: ALL [THE SUSTENANCE] FOR SUCH A WOMAN MAY BE GIVEN OF <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k57a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; R. AKIBA SAID: ONE HALF OF UNCONSECRATED FOOD<a id="k57a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE HALF OF <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k57a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A LEVIR<a id="k57a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; [WHO IS A PRIEST] DOES NOT CONFER [UPON HIS SISTER-IN-LAW]<a id="k57a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; THE RIGHT OF EATING <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k57a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SHE<a id="k57a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; HAD SPENT SIX MONTHS<a id="k57a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH<a id="k57a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; HER HUSBAND AND SIX MONTHS WITH<a id="k57a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; THE LEVIR,<a id="k57a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; OR EVEN [IF SHE SPENT] ALL OF THEM<a id="k57a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH HER HUSBAND LESS ONE DAY WITH<a id="k57a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; THE LEVIR,<a id="k57a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; OR ALL OF THEM<a id="k57a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH<a id="k57a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; THE LEVIR<a id="k57a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; LESS ONE DAY WITH HER HUSBAND,<a id="k57a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE IS NOT PERMITTED TO EAT <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k57a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS<a id="k57a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; [WAS THE RULING ACCORDING TO] AN EARLIER<a id="k57a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>.<a id="k57a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; THE COURT, HOWEVER, THAT SUCCEEDED<a id="k57a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; RULED:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k57b_1:" Who is not the daughter of a priest."
,k57b_2:" Huppah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k57b_3:" Lit., 'whence these words', that A VIRGIN IS ALLOWED TWELVE MONTHS."
,k57b_4:" [H], E.V., a few days."
,k57b_5:" Gen. XXIV, 55, referring to the period the relatives of Rebekah wished her to remain with them after consenting to her marriage with Isaac."
,k57b_6:" The minimum of the plural."
,k57b_7:" Abraham's servant."
,k57b_8:" Lit., 'but what'."
,k57b_9:" E.V., for a full year."
,k57b_10:" Lev. XXV, 29. As here yamim means 'a year' so it does in Gen. XXIV, 55, while [H] means 'ten months'."
,k57b_11:" And [H], 'ten days'."
,k57b_12:" Num. XI, 20. E.V. a full month."
,k57b_13:" Who was claimed by the man who betrothed her."
,k57b_14:" Lit., 'prevent'."
,k57b_15:" Beyond the period given in our Mishnah; until she is of age. V. Tosef. Keth. V."
,k57b_16:" After the marriage, when she finds her connubial duties distasteful."
,k57b_17:" He would then have to provide for her a new marriage outfit (v. Rashi). It is the privilege of a minor to leave her husband at any moment by the mere making of a formal declaration that she does not like him (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>Mi'un</i>)."
,k57b_18:" Without legal betrothal."
,k57b_19:" Lit., 'bring in fear from now'."
,k57b_20:" A bogereth (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). Lit., 'she became adolescent one day'."
,k57b_21:" In which to prepare her marriage outfit."
,k57b_22:" Not the longer period of twelve months. It is assumed that on approaching adolescence a woman begins to prepare her marriage outfit, and the shorter period of one month is regarded as sufficient for completing it."
,k57b_23:" Who (v. our Mishnah) is allowed a period of twelve months!"
,k57b_24:" From the time she was claimed by the man who betrothed her."
,k57b_25:" Ned. 70b, 73b. There is no need for her father to consent to the annulment. (Cf. Num. XXX, 4ff). From here it follows that even one who is adolescent is not entitled to maintenance until after the expiry of twelve months, which is an objection against R. Huna."
,k57b_26:" Who waited thirty days."
,k57b_27:" A na'arah (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k57b_28:" The difference between the two readings is represented in the original by the addition of a mere <i>waw</i>."
,k57b_29:" Lit., 'the (intended) husband'."
,k57b_30:" For the preparation of her outfit."
,k57b_31:" Lit., 'she became of age one day'."
,k57b_32:" V. <i>infra</i> for further explanation."
,k57b_33:" Lev. XXII, 11. The conclusion of the verse is he may eat of it, i.e., of <i>terumah</i>."
,k57b_34:" The money, or the object of value, which the man gives to the woman as her token of betrothal, and whereby she is acquired as his wife."
,k57b_35:" Rt. [H] lit., 'to mix', sc. wine with water or spices."
,k57b_36:" Who are Israelites to whom the eating or drinking of <i>terumah</i> is forbidden."
,k57b_37:" Lit., 'there', where the priest is legally liable to maintain her."
,k57b_38:" Away from her father's household; thus preventing her from giving away his victuals to her relatives."
,k57b_39:" Who is a priest."
,k57b_40:" Lit., 'now'."
,k57b_41:" Obviously not. Hence the permissibility for the gleaner to eat his <i>terumah</i>."
,k57b_42:" Wanting in MS.M."
,k57b_43:" The reason why the daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest is not permitted to eat <i>terumah</i> before the time her husband becomes liable to maintain her."
,k57b_44:" [H] 'an implied condition the non-fulfilment of which annuls the agreement', whence 'a bodily defect&nbsp;&hellip; not stated in the contract' (Jast.) Cf. [G]."
,k57b_45:" In the woman. This might be discovered before the marriage and, as a result, the betrothal would be annulled retrospectively."
,k57b_46:" In this case also, should a bodily defect be discovered before the consummation of the marriage the betrothal would be annulled retrospectively. Why then does our Mishnah permit the eating of <i>terumah</i> in such a case?"
,k57b_47:" Lit., there'."
,k57b_48:" Into the bridal chamber. After entering into the chamber it may be safely assumed that he has satisfied himself that she was not suffering from any bodily defects."
,k57b_49:" Who eats <i>terumah</i> by virtue of being the slave of a priest."
,k57b_50:" And that would retrospectively annul the purchase. The slave would consequently retain the status of an Israelite's slave to whom the eating of <i>terumah</i> was all the time forbidden."
,k57b_51:" And since he nevertheless consented to the purchase he must have been content to overlook it."
,k57b_52:" The sale, therefore, cannot thereby be annulled. "
}

txt:
<p>
A WOMAN<a id="k57b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY NOT EAT <I>TERUMAH</I> UNTIL SHE HAS ENTERED THE BRIDAL CHAMBER.<a id="k57b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Whence is this<a id="k57b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; derived? &mdash; R. Hisda replied: From Scripture which states, And her brother and her mother said: 'Let the damsel abide with us yamim,<a id="k57b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; at the least ten.<a id="k57b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, what could be meant by yamim? If it be suggested 'two days',<a id="k57b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; do people, [it might be retorted,] speak in such a manner? [If when] they suggested to him<a id="k57b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; two days he said no, would they then suggest ten days? Yamim must consequently mean<a id="k57b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; a year, for it is written, yamim<a id="k57b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; shall he have the right of redemption.<a id="k57b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But might it not be said [that yamim means] a month,<a id="k57b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is written, But a month of yamim?<a id="k57b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; I will tell you: [The meaning of] an undefined [expression of] yamim may well be inferred from another undefined expression of yamim, but no undefined expression of yamim may be inferred from one in connection with which month was specifically mentioned. 
</p><p>
	R. Zera stated that a Tanna taught: In the case of a minor,<a id="k57b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; either she herself or her father is empowered to postpone<a id="k57b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [her marriage].<a id="k57b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; One can well understand why she is empowered to postpone [the marriage], but [why also her] father? If she is satisfied, what matters it to her father? &mdash; He might think this: Now she does not realize [what marriage implies] but to-morrow<a id="k57b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; she will rebel [against her husband], leave him and come back to, and fall [a burden] upon me.<a id="k57b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abba b. Levi stated: No arrangements may be made for marrying a minor while she is still in her minority. Arrangements<a id="k57b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; may, however, be made while she is a minor for marrying her when she becomes of age. Is not this obvious? &mdash; It might have been suggested that [this should not be allowed] as a precaution against the possibility of her beginning to feel anxiety at once<a id="k57b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and so becoming ill. Hence we were taught [that no such possibility need be considered]. 
</p><p>
	R. Huna stated: If on the day she became adolescent<a id="k57b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; she was betrothed, she is allowed thirty days<a id="k57b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; like a widow.<a id="k57b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection was raised: One who has attained adolescence is like one who has been claimed [by her intended husband in marriage]. Does not this imply, 'Like a Virgin who was claimed'?<a id="k57b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, like a widow who was claimed. 
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a woman who is adolescent had waited for twelve months<a id="k57b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; her husband, said R. Eliezer, since he is liable for her maintenance, may also annul [her vows]!<a id="k57b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read: A woman who is adolescent<a id="k57b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; or one<a id="k57b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; who waited twelve months.<a id="k57b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a man betrothed a virgin, whether he<a id="k57b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; claimed her and she held back or whether she claimed him and he<a id="k57b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; held back, she is allowed twelve months<a id="k57b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; from the time of the claim but not from the time of the betrothal; and one who is adolescent is like one who has been claimed. How [is this to be understood]? If she was betrothed on the day she became adolescent,<a id="k57b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; she is allowed twelve months; while one betrothed [is sometimes allowed] thirty days.<a id="k57b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Is not this a refutation against R. Huna? &mdash; It is a refutation. 
</p><p>
	What [was meant by] 'while one betrothed [is sometimes allowed] thirty days'? &mdash; R. Papa replied, It is this that was meant: If an adolescent woman was betrothed after twelve months of her adolescence have elapsed, she is allowed<a id="k57b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; thirty days like a widow. IF THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED AND THEY WERE NOT MARRIED. 'Ulla stated: The daughter of an Israelite who is betrothed [to a priest] is, according to Pentateuchal law, permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>, for it is written In Scripture, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money,<a id="k57b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and that [woman] also is the purchase of his money.<a id="k57b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; What then is the reason why [the Rabbis] ruled that she is not permitted to eat [<i>terumah</i>]? Because it might happen that when a cup [of <i>terumah</i>] will be offered<a id="k57b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; to her in the house of her father she might give her brother or sister<a id="k57b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; to drink [from it]. If so, [the same reason should apply] also where THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED AND THEY WERE NOT MARRIED! &mdash; In that case<a id="k57b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; he appoints for her a special place.<a id="k57b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Now then, no [hired harvest] gleaner<a id="k57b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [working] for an Israelite should be allowed to eat <i>terumah</i>, since it is possible that [the household of the Israelite] would come to eat with him! If<a id="k57b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; they feed him from their own [victuals], Would they eat of his?<a id="k57b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel son of Rab<a id="k57b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; Judah explained:<a id="k57b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; Owing to a bodily defect<a id="k57b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [that might subsequently be detected].<a id="k57b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; lf so, [should not the same reason] also [be applicable to a woman who] had entered the bridal chamber, but intercourse with whom did not take place?<a id="k57b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In that case<a id="k57b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; he arranges for her to be first examined and only then takes her in.<a id="k57b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; Now then, the slave of a priest,<a id="k57b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; bought from an Israelite, should not be allowed to eat <i>terumah</i> on account of a bodily defect<a id="k57b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; [that might be discovered]!<a id="k57b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The law of cancellation of a sale owing to a subsequent detection of a] bodily defect<a id="k57b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; does not apply to slaves. For if the defect is external [the buyer] has presumably seen it;<a id="k57b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; and if it is internal, since [the buyer] requires [the slave] for work only he does not mind a private defect.<a id="k57b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; Were [the slave] to be found to have been a thief or
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k58a_1:" So Tosaf. s.v. [H], and cf. [G], 'gambler'; [G]; 'a crafty person' (contra Rashi's interpretation, 'kidnapper')."
,k58a_2:" Lit., 'he reached him'. Slaves being known to possess such characters a buyer of a slave is presumed to have accepted the inevitable."
,k58a_3:" That might be given as a reason for the cancellation of the sale."
,k58a_4:" Sentenced to death."
,k58a_5:" Lit., 'they have a voice', and the buyer must have known the circumstances before he bought him and must have consented to have him despite his unsavoury character."
,k58a_6:" 'Ulla."
,k58a_7:" R. Samuel."
,k58a_8:" The daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest."
,k58a_9:" Once he consented to overlook them he cannot again advance them as a reason for the annulment of the betrothal. In such a case R. Samuel's explanation is not applicable while that of 'Ulla is."
,k58a_10:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 48b. As she does not any longer live with her father's family 'Ulla's reason does not apply while that of R. Samuel does."
,k58a_11:" Himself or his agents."
,k58a_12:" That of R. Tarfon and R. Akiba."
,k58a_13:" Who is familiar with the restrictions of <i>terumah</i> and would, therefore, abstain from eating it during the days of her Levitical uncleanness when consecrated food is forbidden to her."
,k58a_14:" Who may be ignorant of the restrictions appertaining to <i>terumah</i>."
,k58a_15:" Even R. Tarfon."
,k58a_16:" For consumption during the days of her uncleanness."
,k58a_17:" Being the daughter of a priest."
,k58a_18:" Her father with whom she lives during the period of her betrothal might well be relied upon that, as a priest, he would duly supervise her observance of the laws of <i>terumah</i> and would, during her uncleanness, himself, or through her brothers, sell her <i>terumah</i> and purchase for her with the proceeds unconsecrated food."
,k58a_19:" Who does not live with her husband (cf. <i>infra</i> 64b)."
,k58a_20:" Being alone she might not be able to arrange for the sale of her <i>terumah</i> during her uncleanness, and might consequently be apt to consume the consecrated food forbidden to her."
,k58a_21:" The difference of opinion."
,k58a_22:" V. p. 342, n. 10."
,k58a_23:" Being the daughter of a priest."
,k58a_24:" V. p. 342. n. 14."
,k58a_25:" V. p. 342, n. 15."
,k58a_26:" Lit., 'portions'."
,k58a_27:" But, unlike R. Tarfon who allows only as much <i>terumah</i> as if it were unconsecrated victuals, R. Judah allows a larger quantity of <i>terumah</i> (which is cheaper) so that its proceeds should suffice for the purchase of the required quantity of ordinary food."
,k58a_28:" Lit., 'money'."
,k58a_29:" In the subject under discussion."
,k58a_30:" Tosef. Keth. V. ab. init."
,k58a_31:" R. Judah and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k58a_32:" In the selling of her <i>terumah</i>. It is difficult to sell <i>terumah</i> (the buyers of which, being priests only, are naturally few) and it must be offered at a very low price. To save the woman trouble R. Gamaliel allows her <i>terumah</i> double the quantity of unconsecrated victuals so that by reducing the price of the former by a half she would easily dispose of it and be able to acquire with the proceeds her required ordinary victuals. R. Judah, however, makes no provision for saving her trouble, and allows her only a slight margin of <i>terumah</i> above that of ordinary food estimated at the current prices."
,k58a_33:" Lev. XXII, 11, v. also <i>supra</i> p. 340, n. 5; only such may eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k58a_34:" She does not become his own wife before he acquired her through the levirate marriage."
,k58a_35:" I.e., OR ALL OF THEM WITH THE LEVIR LESS ONE DAY WITH HER HUSBAND etc. If when one day only of the twelve months was not spent with the husband she does not acquire the privilege of eating <i>terumah</i>, how much less would such a privilege be acquired when all the period less one day was not spent with the husband!"
,k58a_36:" Lit., 'he taught'."
,k58a_37:" Lit., 'this, and he need not tell this'."
,k58a_38:" Of the later <i>Beth din</i>."
,k58a_39:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 341, nn. 3-4."
,k58a_40:" Who (<i>supra</i> 75b) gave as the reason for the ruling of the earlier Mishnah that the woman might allow her relatives to drink of her cup of <i>terumah</i>."
,k58a_41:" Forbidding <i>terumah</i> during the first twelve months also permitting it after the expiration of that period."
,k58a_42:" Which extends the prohibition until the entry into the bridal chamber."
,k58a_43:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 340, n. 6."
,k58a_44:" And she might allow her relatives to drink from it (v. <i>supra</i> note 6). As this would not happen after the twelve months when the intended husband, becoming liable for her maintenance and desirous of preventing her from giving away his victuals to her relatives in her father's house, provides for her an abode of her own, the woman was permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>."
,k58a_45:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 341, n. 3. Hence the extension of the prohibition until the entry into the bridal chamber. "
}

txt:
<p>
a gambler<a id="k58a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the sale is still valid.<a id="k58a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; What else is there?<a id="k58a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [Only that the slave might be found to have been] an armed robber or one proscribed by the government;<a id="k58a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but such characters are generally known.<a id="k58a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Consider! Whether according to the [explanation of the one] Master<a id="k58a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; or according to that of the other Master<a id="k58a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; she<a id="k58a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is not permitted to eat [<i>terumah</i>], what then is the practical difference between them? &mdash; The difference between them [is the case where her intended husband] accepted [her defects,<a id="k58a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; or where her father] delivered [her to the intended husband's agents]<a id="k58a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or went<a id="k58a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [with them].<a id="k58a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. TARFON SAID: ALL [THE SUSTENANCE] FOR SUCH A WOMAN MAY BE GIVEN OF <I>TERUMAH</I> etc. Abaye stated: The dispute<a id="k58a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to the daughter of a priest<a id="k58a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; who was betrothed to a priest but with respect to the daughter of an Israelite<a id="k58a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; who was betrothed to a priest all<a id="k58a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food<a id="k58a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and one half of <i>terumah</i>. 
</p><p>
	Abaye further stated: Their dispute<a id="k58a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; relates to one who<a id="k58a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; was only betrothed,<a id="k58a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect of a married woman<a id="k58a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; all<a id="k58a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food<a id="k58a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and one half of <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k58a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; So it was also taught: R. Tarfon said, All [the sustenance] for such a woman is given of <i>terumah</i>. R. Akiba said, One half of consecrated food and one half of <i>terumah</i> &mdash; This<a id="k58a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to the daughter of a priest who was betrothed to a priest, but with respect to the daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest all<a id="k58a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food and one half of <i>terumah</i>. This,<a id="k58a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; furthermore, applies only to one who<a id="k58a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; was only betrothed but in respect of a married woman<a id="k58a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; all<a id="k58a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food<a id="k58a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and one half of <i>terumah</i>.<a id="k58a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah b. Bathyra said, She is supplied with two thirds<a id="k58a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; of <i>terumah</i> and one third of unconsecrated food. R. Judah said, All [her sustenance] is given to her in <i>terumah</i><a id="k58a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and she sells it and purchases unconsecrated food out of the proceeds.<a id="k58a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, Wherever <i>terumah</i> was mentioned<a id="k58a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [the woman] is to be given [a supply equal to] twice the quantity of unconsecrated victuals.<a id="k58a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the practical difference between them?<a id="k58a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The difference between them [is the question of the woman's] trouble.<a id="k58a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A LEVIR [WHO IS A PRIEST] DOES NOT CONFER [UPON HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] THE RIGHT OF EATING <I>TERUMAH</I>. What is the reason? &mdash; The All-Merciful said, The purchase of his money<a id="k58a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; while she is the purchase of his brother.<a id="k58a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF SHE HAD SPENT SIX MONTHS WITH HER HUSBAND. Now that you stated [that even if she spent the full twelve months less one day] WITH THE HUSBAND [she is] not [permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>] is there any need [to mention also] WITH THE LEVIR?<a id="k58a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is a case<a id="k58a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; [of anti-climax:] 
</p><p>
	'This, and there is no need to say that'.<a id="k58a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS [WAS THE RULING ACCORDING TO] AN EARLIER MISHNAH etc. What is the reason?<a id="k58a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Ulla, or some say R. Samuel b. Judah, replied: Owing to a bodily defect [that might subsequently be detected].<a id="k58a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; According to 'Ulla<a id="k58a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; one can well understand [the respective rulings of the earlier,<a id="k58a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; and the later rulings],<a id="k58a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; the former<a id="k58a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; being due to the possibility that a cup [of <i>terumah</i>] might be offered<a id="k58a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; to her in the house of her father,<a id="k58a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; and the latter to [the possibility of] the detection of a bodily defect.<a id="k58a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k58b_1:" The author of the earlier Mishnah."
,k58b_2:" Lit., 'outside'. Which the man would naturally arrange at the expiry of the twelve months when he becomes liable for her maintenance."
,k58b_3:" I.e., after such an examination a man can no longer refuse to marry the woman on the ground of the subsequent detection in her of some bodily defect. Hence his ruling (v. <i>supra</i> p. 344. n. 7)."
,k58b_4:" I.e., the authorities of the latter ruling."
,k58b_5:" And the man may cancel the engagement. Hence the prohibition to eat <i>terumah</i> until the entry into the bridal chamber when the man himself has the opportunity of ascertaining the condition of her body."
,k58b_6:" Which partly belongs to him (v. <i>infra</i> 64b)."
,k58b_7:" The reason is given <i>infra</i>."
,k58b_8:" Of the proceeds in excess of the sum required for her maintenance."
,k58b_9:" The reason is given <i>infra</i>."
,k58b_10:" The Hebrew equivalent of the last five words is wanting in the corresponding passage in B.K. 8b."
,k58b_11:" Since a woman cannot always earn sufficient for her maintenance."
,k58b_12:" Between husband and wife."
,k58b_13:" As the Rabbinical enactment aimed at the benefit of the woman only, she may well decline that favour if she is so minded."
,k58b_14:" Which belongs to her husband (<i>supra</i> 47b). This implies that the assignment of a wife's handiwork to her husband was the original provision."
,k58b_15:" R. Huna's."
,k58b_16:" And, indeed, also desires to do so. Cf. Rashi and Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k58b_17:" And since he is nevertheless precluded from consecrating her handiwork it follows, as R. Huna ruled, that a wife is entitled to refuse maintenance and to retain her right over her work."
,k58b_18:" That he has no right to consecrate her handiwork which does not belong to him!"
,k58b_19:" B.K. 87b, <i>supra</i> 43a, Git. 12a."
,k58b_20:" Deut. XV, 16."
,k58b_21:" What need then was there to state the obvious?"
,k58b_22:" The first clause which is indeed self-evident."
,k58b_23:" Though he does not maintain her."
,k58b_24:" For giving a husband the right of consecrating his wife's handiwork."
,k58b_25:" Such as the woman's work before she has performed it."
,k58b_26:" Which, of course, were in existence at the time of the consecration. Thus it has been shown that according to Resh Lakish it is the opinion of R. Meir that a husband has the right to compel his wife to work."
,k58b_27:" The husband."
,k58b_28:" He did not say 'Your hands', but 'Your handiwork'."
,k58b_29:" V. 'Ar. 5a."
,k58b_30:" Since it would serve no purpose at all in the form he used it."
,k58b_31:" V. Glos"
,k58b_32:" When the respective conditions are fulfilled, though at the time of the betrothal they were still unfulfilled (Yeb. 92b, 93b, B.M. 16b). This then shows that a man can legally dispose even of that which is not yet in existence."
,k58b_33:" V. n. 7 final clause."
,k58b_34:" Lit., 'yes'."
,k58b_35:" Since the reason may well be the one given <i>supra</i> by Resh Lakish."
,k58b_36:" When her husband inherits her estate."
,k58b_37:" As soon as it is produced."
,k58b_38:" Could the two opposing views be justified."
,k58b_39:" Whereby he acquires the right to her earnings."
,k58b_40:" Every week."
,k58b_41:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k58b_42:" Whereby he acquires the right to the surplus of her earnings in excess of the sum required for her maintenance, cf. <i>infra</i> 64b."
,k58b_43:" Since the husband is entitled to both her earnings and the surplus the consecration should take effect even while she is alive."
,k58b_44:" Lit., 'for ever'; 'always'. "
}

txt:
<p>
According to R. Samuel b. Judah, however, the earlier [ruling of the] Mishnah is due to [the possible detection of] a bodily defect and the later is also due to [the possible detection of] a bodily defect, what then is [the reason for] their difference? &mdash; [The principle underlying] the difference is the [efficacy of an] examination by outsiders. One Master<a id="k58b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that an examination by others<a id="k58b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is regarded as effective,<a id="k58b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other Master<a id="k58b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; holds the opinion that an examination by others is not regarded as effective.<a id="k58b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN CONSECRATED HIS WIFE'S HANDIWORK,<a id="k58b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO WORK AND TO CONSUME [THE PROCEEDS HERSELF].<a id="k58b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS<a id="k58b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.<a id="k58b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR RULED: IT REMAINS UNCONSECRATED.<a id="k58b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Huna stated in the name of Rab:<a id="k58b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; A woman is entitled to say to her husband, 'I do not wish either to be maintained by you or to work for you'. He holds the opinion that when the Rabbis regulated [the relations of husband and wife] her maintenance was fundamental<a id="k58b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; while [the assignment of the proceeds of] her handiwork [to her husband] was due [only to their desire for preventing] ill-feeling.<a id="k58b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; If, therefore, she said, 'I do not wish either to be maintained by you or to work for you', she is entitled to do so.<a id="k58b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: Maintenance [for a wife] was provided in return for her handiwork!<a id="k58b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read: Her handiwork was assigned [to her husband] in return for her maintenance. 
</p><p>
	May it be suggested that [our Mishnah] provides support for his<a id="k58b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; view? [It stated,] IF A MAN CONSECRATED HIS WIFE'S HANDIWORK SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO WORK AND TO CONSUME [THE PROCEEDS HERSELF]. Does not [this refer to a wife for whom her husband is able<a id="k58b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; to] provide maintenance?<a id="k58b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; [it is a case where the husband is unable to] provide her maintenance. If, however, [her husband is unable to] provide her maintenance, what need was there to state [such an obvious case]?<a id="k58b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Even according to him who holds that a master has the right to say to his slave, 'Work for me but I will not maintain you,'<a id="k58b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; such a rule applies only to a Canaanite slave concerning whom Scripture has not written 'with thee', but not to a Hebrew slave concerning whom it is written in Scripture. With thee,<a id="k58b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; how much less then [would this apply to] his wife?<a id="k58b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It<a id="k58b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; was necessary [as an introduction to] the final clause: [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.<a id="k58b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR RULED: IT REMAINS UNCONSECRATED. 
</p><p>
	Now [R. Huna's ruling] is in disagreement with that of Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish stated: You must not assume that R. Meir's reason<a id="k58b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is because he is of the opinion that a man may consecrate that which has not yet come into existence<a id="k58b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but this is R. Meir's reason: Since [a husband] has the right to compel her to work, his consecration is regarded as if he had said to her, 'May your hands<a id="k58b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; be consecrated to Him who created them'. But, surely, he<a id="k58b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; did not use such an expression!<a id="k58b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since R. Meir was heard to state that a man does not utter his words to no purpose,<a id="k58b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [the expression the husband used here]<a id="k58b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; may be regarded as if he had actually said to her, 'May your hands be consecrated to Him who created them'. But is R. Meir of the opinion that a man cannot consecrate anything that is not yet in existence? Surely it was taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Be thou betrothed unto me after I shall have become a proselyte' or 'After thou shalt have become a proselyte'. 'After I shall have been set free', 'After thou shalt have been set free', 'After thy husband will have died', 'After thy sister will have died', or 'After thy brother-in-law shall have submitted to <i>halizah</i><a id="k58b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; from thee', she, R. Meir ruled, is legally betrothed!<a id="k58b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; From that [Baraitha] the inference<a id="k58b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; may indeed be drawn;<a id="k58b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; from this, [our Mishnah], however, it cannot be inferred.<a id="k58b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED. When does it become consecrated? &mdash; Both Rab and Samuel stated: The surplus becomes consecrated only after [the wife's] death.<a id="k58b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Adda b. Ahabah stated: The surplus is consecrated while she is still alive.<a id="k58b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [In considering this statement] R. Papa argued: In what circumstances?<a id="k58b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; If it be suggested: Where [the husband] allows her maintenance<a id="k58b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; and also allows her<a id="k58b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; a silver <i>ma'ah</i><a id="k58b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; for her other requirements,<a id="k58b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; what [it may be retorted] is the reason of those who stated that it 'becomes consecrated only after [the wife's] death'?<a id="k58b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, it is a case where [the husband] does not allow her maintenance and does not allow her a silver <i>ma'ah</i> for her other requirements, what [it may be objected] is the reason of him who stated that 'it is consecrated while she is still alive'? &mdash; This is a case indeed<a id="k58b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; where he does allow her maintenance; but does not allow her a silver <i>ma'ah</i> for her other requirements. Rab and Samuel are of the opinion that [the Rabbis] have ordained
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k59a_1:" Which belongs to the husband."
,k59a_2:" Every week."
,k59a_3:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 347. n. 14."
,k59a_4:" And cannot consequently be consecrated by him until after her death when he inherits it."
,k59a_5:" Rab and Samuel on the one hand and R. Adda b. Ahabah on the other."
,k59a_6:" Maintenance."
,k59a_7:" The proceeds of the woman's handiwork. A surplus, however, in excess of the sum required for her maintenance, is unusual."
,k59a_8:" The silver <i>ma'ah</i>."
,k59a_9:" A wife's handiwork the quantity of which is prescribed (v. <i>infra</i> 64b)."
,k59a_10:" <i>Supra</i> 47b, 58b. An objection against R. Adda b. Ahabah."
,k59a_11:" <i>Infra</i> 64b; which proves that the <i>ma'ah</i> is in return for her handiwork not for the surplus. An objection against Rab and Samuel,"
,k59a_12:" A wife."
,k59a_13:" Her husband."
,k59a_14:" V, <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>Sela'</i>."
,k59a_15:" <i>Infra</i> 64b. This 'handiwork', not the surplus. How then could the insertion of 'surplus' be justified?"
,k59a_16:" The Galilean <i>sela'</i> being equal to half that of Judaea."
,k59a_17:" In our Mishnah."
,k59a_18:" [H], (konam) one of the expressions of a vow. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k59a_19:" I.e., that her husband shall be forbidden to eat anything prepared by her or purchased from the proceeds of her work."
,k59a_20:" The husband who is empowered to annul his wife's vows. V. Num. XXX, 7f."
,k59a_21:" As a wife's work belongs to her husband she has no right to dispose of it by vow or in any other way. Her vow is, therefore, null and void and requires no invalidation."
,k59a_22:" More than the quantity to which he is entitled (v. <i>infra</i> 64b). Any work in excess of that quantity remains at the disposal of the wife who is entitled to forbid it to her husband by a vow. Hence the necessity for annulment."
,k59a_23:" Not only on account of the surplus as stated by R. Akiba."
,k59a_24:" When he loses all claim to her work, and her vow becomes effective."
,k59a_25:" He would not be able to remarry her because her vow would prevent her from performing for him any of the services which a wife must do for her husband. [R. Johanan b. Nuri is of the opinion that the surplus belongs to the husband and the woman has thus no right to forbid it to him by vow.]"
,k59a_26:" V. Ned. 85a and <i>infra</i> 66a and 70a."
,k59a_27:" According to whom the woman's vow becomes valid after her divorce though at the time the vow was made the work she will do afterwards has not yet come into existence. From this it follows that a person may similarly consecrate anything that is not yet in existence. How, then, could Samuel who adopts this view as the <i>halachah</i> also state that the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Johanan ha-Sandelar according to whom a thing which is not yet in existence cannot be consecrated? [For this can be the only reason for R. Johanan ha-Sandelar's view in the Mishnah according to Samuel who explained the reference in the Mishnah to be to the surplus after the wife's death (v. <i>supra</i> p. 347) which R. Johanan ha-Sandelar will regard as unconsecrated because, at the time when the husband consecrated his wife's handiwork, it was not yet in existence (Rashi)."
,k59a_28:" And not to all her work which has not yet come into existence. This answer could be easily refuted, since the same objection that has been raised against the 'handiwork' may equally be raised against the 'surplus' which also was not in existence when the vow was made. This had been waived, however, in view of the more general objection that follows (Rashi). [Tosaf: Samuel's statement that the <i>halachah</i> is like R. Johanan b. Nuri is limited to his view that the surplus belongs to the husband v. <i>supra</i> p. 349. n. 14]."
,k59a_29:" Samuel."
,k59a_30:" From which it would be inferred that annulment of the vow is necessary only on account of the surplus."
,k59a_31:" Who specifically mentioned the surplus. Since none of these expressions was used it is obvious that Samuel could not have referred to the surplus only."
,k59a_32:" Plural of konam, a general term for vows which are usually introduced by konam."
,k59a_33:" In making a vow."
,k59a_34:" Though he could not consecrate such fruit to the Sanctuary."
,k59a_35:" I.e., prohibit to himself by a vow."
,k59a_36:" I.e., seeing that he can, by means of a vow, prohibit to himself a thing which is not in his possession, he can also prohibit a thing which is not yet in existence. Hence the validity of the vow. In our Mishnah, however, where the subject is ordinary consecration to the sanctuary, <i>halachah</i> is indeed in agreement with R. Johanan ha-Sandelar that the consecration is invalid."
,k59a_37:" R. Joseph. 'To him' is wanting in MS.M."
,k59a_38:" By a vow."
,k59a_39:" To any particular person, by means of a vow, or to everybody by a general consecration to the Sanctuary."
,k59a_40:" He may forbid his fellow's fruit to himself as the master of his own body; and he may forbid his fruit to his fellow as the owner of his fruit."
,k59a_41:" The woman's work. Neither her work (which has not yet been done) nor her right to it (which she will regain only after divorce) is yet in existence."
,k59a_42:" Even by a vow."
,k59a_43:" Certainly not. As a person has no right to do the latter, he being neither master of his fellow's body nor owner of his fruit, so he should not be entitled to do the former (v. <i>supra</i> note 1.)"
,k59a_44:" R. Johanan b. Nuri's ruling which Samuel adopted as the <i>halachah</i>."
,k59a_45:" Whereas our Mishnah deals with the case where she consecrated her handiwork, and this is not yet in existence."
,k59a_46:" Her husband. How then could she consecrate that which is not hers?"
,k59a_47:" The consecration shall take effect."
,k59a_48:" At that time she is again independent of her husband."
,k59a_49:" As in the case under discussion where the woman while living with her husband is ineligible to dispose of her work."
,k59a_50:" Obviously not. How then could the <i>halachah</i> be in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri?"
,k59a_51:" When it is re-purchased."
,k59a_52:" It certainly would. Similarly in the case of a woman's work after she is divorced."
,k59a_53:" The case of the field one is about to sell."
,k59a_54:" Since at the time of the consecration it is still to his possession. Hence also the effectiveness of his present consecration after he had re-purchased that field."
,k59a_55:" In the case of the consecration of a wife's work while she is still with her husband."
,k59a_56:" How then could she have the power to consecrate her work even for the future?"
,k59a_57:" Lit., 'this is not equal but',"
,k59a_58:" Because at the time of the consecration it was no longer in his possession."
,k59a_59:" The case of the sold field,"
,k59a_60:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 351, n. 15."
,k59a_61:" V. p. 351, n. 17. "
}

txt:
<p>
maintenance [for a wife] in return for her handiwork,<a id="k59a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and a silver <i>ma'ah</i><a id="k59a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in return for the surplus;<a id="k59a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and since the husband does not give her the silver <i>ma'ah</i>, the surplus remains hers.<a id="k59a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Adda b. Ahabah, however, is of the opinion that maintenance was ordained in return for the surplus,<a id="k59a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and the silver <i>ma'ah</i> in return for her handiwork; and since [the husband] supplies her maintenance, the surplus is his. On what principle do they<a id="k59a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; differ? &mdash; The Masters hold that the usual<a id="k59a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is for the usual,<a id="k59a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Master holds that the fixed [sum]<a id="k59a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is for the fixed [quantity].<a id="k59a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: Maintenance [for a wife] was provided in return for her handiwork!<a id="k59a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read: In return for the surplus of her handiwork. 
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If he does not give her a silver <i>ma'ah</i> for her other requirements, her handiwork belongs to her!<a id="k59a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read: The surplus of her handiwork belongs to her. But, surely, in connection with this statement it was taught: What [is the quantity of work that] she<a id="k59a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; must do for him?<a id="k59a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The weight of five sela's<a id="k59a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; of warp in Judaea [etc.]!<a id="k59a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is this that was meant: What is the quantity of work [that she must do] in order that we might determine how much is her surplus? The weight of five sela's of warp in Judaea which is ten sela's<a id="k59a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in Galilee. 
</p><p>
	Samuel stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Johanan ha-Sandelar.<a id="k59a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But could Samuel have made such a statement? Have we not learned: [If a woman said to her husband],<a id="k59a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; if I do aught for your mouth',<a id="k59a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k59a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; need not annul her vow.<a id="k59a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba, however, said: He<a id="k59a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; must annul it, since she might do more work than is due to him.<a id="k59a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan b. Nuri said: He<a id="k59a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; must annul her vow<a id="k59a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; since he might happen to divorce her<a id="k59a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and she would [owing to her vow] be forbidden to return<a id="k59a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; to him.<a id="k59a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; And Samuel stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri?<a id="k59a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; When Samuel stated, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri' [he referred only] to the surplus.<a id="k59a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let him<a id="k59a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; specifically state, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri in respect of the surplus', or else 'The <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with the first Tanna',<a id="k59a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; or else, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Akiba!<a id="k59a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, replied R. Joseph, you speak of konamoth?<a id="k59a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Konamoth are different. For, as a man may<a id="k59a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; forbid to himself the fruit of his fellow<a id="k59a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; so may he also consecrate<a id="k59a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; that which is not yet in existence.<a id="k59a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him:<a id="k59a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; It is quite logical that a man should be entitled to forbid the use of the fruit of his fellows to himself,<a id="k59a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; since he may also forbid his own fruit<a id="k59a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; to his fellow;<a id="k59a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; should he, however, have the right to forbid something that is not yet in existence,<a id="k59a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; seeing that no man has the right<a id="k59a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; to forbid the fruit of his fellow to his fellow?<a id="k59a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, replied R. Huna son of R. Joshua, [that<a id="k59a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; is a case] where the woman said, 'My hands shall be consecrated to Him who created them', [such consecration being valid] since her hands are in existence.<a id="k59a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; But even if she had said so, could she consecrate them? Are they not mortgaged to him?<a id="k59a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This is a case] where she said,<a id="k59a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; 'When I shall have been divorced'.<a id="k59a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; But is there a consecration that could not take effect now<a id="k59a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; and would nevertheless become effective later?<a id="k59a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; And why not? retorted R. Elai. Were a man to say to his friend, 'This field that I am selling you shall be consecrated as soon as I shall have re-purchased it from you', would it not<a id="k59a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; become consecrated?<a id="k59a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah demurred: What a comparison? There<a id="k59a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; [the seller] has the right to consecrate [his field];<a id="k59a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; here,<a id="k59a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; however, [the woman] has no power to divorce herself!<a id="k59a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; This<a id="k59a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; is rather similar<a id="k59a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; to the case of a man who said to another, 'This field which I have sold to you shall become consecrated after I shall have re-purchased it from you', where it does not become consecrated.<a id="k59a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa demurred: Are the two cases at all similar? There<a id="k59a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; both the field itself and its produce are in the possession of the buyer, but here<a id="k59a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; the wife's person is in her own possession. This<a id="k59a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; is rather similar<a id="k59a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; to the case of a man who said to another,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k59b_1:" The mortgaged field."
,k59b_2:" The man who consecrated the field."
,k59b_3:" During which period he has no power to redeem it, as a wife has no power to divorce herself."
,k59b_4:" The ten years' mortgage."
,k59b_5:" The two cases, therefore, cannot be compared."
,k59b_6:" Of the animal or object consecrated."
,k59b_7:" In relation to the man concerned; and unlike other consecrations to the Temple Treasury, can never be redeemed."
,k59b_8:" For the validity of the consecration of the wife's work."
,k59b_9:" Of a pledged animal for the altar."
,k59b_10:" Which is pledged to a non-Israelite but kept in the possession of an Israelite when the time for its destruction on the Passover Eve arrives. No leaven or leavened food though pledged to a non-Jew may be kept in Jewish possession from the mid-day of Passover Eve until the conclusion of the Passover festival,"
,k59b_11:" Of a mortgaged slave,"
,k59b_12:" Similarly here, the consecration cancels the husband's claim upon the body or work of his wife. Hence the validity of her consecration."
,k59b_13:" The wife's hands."
,k59b_14:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 15."
,k59b_15:" Why then has it been stated that the consecration becomes effective only after her divorce."
,k59b_16:" [H] lit., 'the subjection or pledging to the husband'."
,k59b_17:" His rights, as long as she lives with him, are not merely those of a creditor to whom an object has been mortgaged or pledged but the fuller rights of a buyer. For further notes on the whole of this passage, v. Ned. Sonc. ed. pp. 265ff."
,k59b_18:" Or a sum that would purchase one."
,k59b_19:" Or their value. V. <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k59b_20:" Lit., 'sit'."
,k59b_21:" I.e., she need not perform even minor services for him. She is under no obligation to leave her chair to bring him any object even from the same house (cf. Rashi). [H], cf. [G], 'an easy chair', 'soft seat'."
,k59b_22:" Her husband."
,k59b_23:" Or, according to another interpretation, 'should'."
,k59b_24:" I.e., precautions must be taken against idleness not only in the case mentioned by R. Eliezer but also in the following where the husband himself forbade the work."
,k59b_25:" Thus enabling her to engage in work again."
,k59b_26:" [H], 'stupefaction', 'dullness'."
,k59b_27:" A woman, surely, could not be expected to turn the sails or the wheels of a mill."
,k59b_28:" Lit., 'causing'."
,k59b_29:" She performs the accompanying services only."
,k59b_30:" Which imposes duties of work upon a wife."
,k59b_31:" Lit., 'a woman is not but'."
,k59b_32:" V. p. 353, n. 14."
,k59b_33:" Not as a bondwoman for her husband. R. Hiyya agrees, however, that a wife is expected to work in wool in return for the maintenance her husband allow's her. His only objection is to menial work such as the grinding of corn which has an injurious effect upon her womanly grace. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k59b_34:" Lit., 'to nurse', 'to make pliant', 'to make graceful'."
,k59b_35:" Lit., 'that he may make white'."
,k59b_36:" Which imposes upon a wife the duty of suckling her children."
,k59b_37:" I.e., her vow is valid, because she is under no obligation to suckle her child."
,k59b_38:" According to their view it is a mother's duty to suckle her child and her vow is, therefore, null and void."
,k59b_39:" And refuses to be nursed by any other woman (Rashi). [Isaiah Trani: Even if it does not refuse to be suckled by another woman, its separation from its mother, whom it has learnt to recognize, may prove injurious to the infant]."
,k59b_40:" Tosef. Keth. V. Since Beth Shammai maintain here that a wife is under no obligation to suckle her children (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 6) out Mishnah (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 5) obviously cannot be in agreement with their view."
,k59b_41:" In the cited Baraitha."
,k59b_42:" I.e., it is the husband's fault that the vow remained valid. He could easily have annulled it had he wished to do so. (V. Num. XXX, 7ff)."
,k59b_43:" She should not have vowed (cf. <i>supra</i> note 7)."
,k59b_44:" If, as now suggested, the husband has confirmed the vow the woman had made."
,k59b_45:" Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel."
,k59b_46:" Where a woman vowed that her husband was to have no benefits from her. According to Beth Shammai she would be entitled to her <i>kethubah</i> because it is the man's fault that her vow remained valid (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 354, n. 11), while according to Beth Hillel she would receive no <i>kethubah</i> because the making of the vow was her fault (cf. p. 354. n. 12)."
,k59b_47:" In respect of any woman, even one who made no vow."
,k59b_48:" How then could it be suggested that our Mishnah is in agreement with the view of Beth Shammai? "
}

txt:
<p>
'This field which I have mortgaged to you shall be consecrated after I have redeemed it,' where it is consecrated. R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred: Are these cases similar? There it<a id="k59b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is in his<a id="k59b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; power to redeem it; but here she has no power to divorce herself. This is rather similar to the case of a man who said to his fellow, 'This field which I have mortgaged to you for ten years<a id="k59b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; shall be consecrated when I shall have redeemed it', where it becomes consecrated. R. Ashi demurred: Are these cases similar? There<a id="k59b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k59b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; has the power to redeem it at least after ten years, but here she has never the power to divorce herself!<a id="k59b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, replied R. Ashi, you speak of konamoth! Konamoth are different [from ordinary vows] since they effect the consecration of the body<a id="k59b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; itself;<a id="k59b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the reason here<a id="k59b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is the same] as that of Raba, for Raba stated: Consecration,<a id="k59b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; leavened food<a id="k59b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and manumission<a id="k59b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; cancel a mortgage.<a id="k59b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k59b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; should then<a id="k59b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; become consecrated forthwith!<a id="k59b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis have imparted force to a husband's rights<a id="k59b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [over his wife] so that they<a id="k59b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; shall not become consecrated forthwith.<a id="k59b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF WORK WHICH A WOMAN MUST PERFORM FOR HER HUSBAND: GRINDING CORN, BAKING BREAD, WASHING CLOTHES, COOKING, SUCKLING HER CHILD, MAKING READY HIS BED AND WORKING IN WOOL. IF SHE BROUGHT HIM ONE BONDWOMAN<a id="k59b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE NEED NOT DO ANY GRINDING OR BAKING OR WASHING. [IF SHE BROUGHT] TWO BONDWOMEN,<a id="k59b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE NEED NOT EVEN COOK OR SUCKLE HER CHILD. IF THREE, SHE NEED NEITHER MAKE READY HIS BED NOR WORK IN WOOL. IF FOUR, SHE MAY LOUNGE<a id="k59b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; IN AN EASY CHAIR.<a id="k59b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ELIEZER SAID: EVEN IF SHE BROUGHT HIM<a id="k59b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; A HUNDRED BONDWOMEN HE MAY<a id="k59b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; COMPEL HER TO WORK IN WOOL; FOR IDLENESS LEADS TO UNCHASTITY. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: EVEN<a id="k59b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE UNDER A VOW TO DO ANY WORK HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k59b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; TO HER FOR IDLENESS LEADS TO IDIOCY.<a id="k59b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. GRINDING CORN! How could you imagine this?<a id="k59b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Read: Attending to<a id="k59b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; the grinding.<a id="k59b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you prefer I might say: With a hand mill. 
</p><p>
	Our Mishnah<a id="k59b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; does not agree with the view of R. Hiyya. For R. Hiyya taught: A wife [should be taken] mainly for the sake<a id="k59b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; of her beauty; mainly for the sake<a id="k59b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; of children.<a id="k59b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Hiyya further taught: A wife is mainly for the wearing<a id="k59b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; of a woman's finery. And R. Hiyya further taught: He who wishes his wife to look graceful<a id="k59b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; should clothe her in linen garments. He who wishes his daughter to have a bright complexion,<a id="k59b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; let him, on the approach of her maturity, feed her with young fowls and give her milk to drink. 
</p><p>
	SUCKLING HER CHILD. Must it be assumed that our Mishnah<a id="k59b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; does not agree with the View of Beth Shammai? For was it not taught: If a woman vowed not to sickle her child she must, said Beth Shammai, pull the breast out of its mouth,<a id="k59b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and Beth Hillel said: [Her husband] may compel her to suckle it.<a id="k59b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; If she was divorced he cannot compel her; but if [the child] knows her<a id="k59b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; [her husband] pays her the fee and may compel her to suckle it in order [to avert] danger?<a id="k59b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of Beth Shammai, but here<a id="k59b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; we are dealing with such a case, for instance, where the woman made a vow and her husband confirmed it; Beth Shammai being of the opinion that he has thereby put his finger between her teeth,<a id="k59b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; while Beth Hillel hold that it is she that has put her finger between her teeth.<a id="k59b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; Then<a id="k59b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; let them<a id="k59b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; express their disagreement as regards a <i>kethubah</i> generally.<a id="k59b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; Furthermore, it was taught:<a id="k59b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; Beth Shammai said: She need not suckle [her child]!<a id="k59b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, clearly, our Mishnah is not in agreement with the view of Beth Shammai. 
</p><p>
	'If [the child] knows her'.
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k60a_1:" Lit., 'until how much?' i.e., at what age is a child assumed to know its mother, and to refuse in consequence to be suckled by another woman?"
,k60a_2:" Lit., 'every one according to his sharpness'; the former fixing it at the age of three months and the latter at that of fifty days."
,k60a_3:" That a child should know its mother at the age of thirty days."
,k60a_4:" From Palestine to Babylon, v. <i>infra</i> 111b."
,k60a_5:" Whatever its age."
,k60a_6:" May a mother be compelled to suckle it, even after she has been divorced. She is only entitled to a fee from the child's father."
,k60a_7:" To ascertain whether the child knew its mother."
,k60a_8:" Cur. edd. [H], (fem.). Read with Bomb. ed. [H] (masc.)."
,k60a_9:" Af. of [H], 'to look up with joy' (Jast.). 'to gaze longingly'."
,k60a_10:" Of the milk."
,k60a_11:" Lit., 'a baby sucks and continues until'."
,k60a_12:" If he is still breast fed."
,k60a_13:" Lit., 'he separated'."
,k60a_14:" Lit., 'and returned'."
,k60a_15:" Cf. Tosef. Nid. II."
,k60a_16:" Lit., 'those who walk on two (legs)'."
,k60a_17:" V. Rashi; lit., 'unclean'."
,k60a_18:" Of the unclean classes enumerated in Lev. XI, 4ff and Deut, XIV, 7ff."
,k60a_19:" By a human being."
,k60a_20:" Contact with a live animal, even of the unclean classes (v. <i>supra</i> n. 10), does not cause uncleanness."
,k60a_21:" It is forbidden for human consumption (v. Bek, 6b)."
,k60a_22:" Contact with a menstruant, for instance, causes uncleanness."
,k60a_23:" Emphasis on 'it' ( [H]) (v. <i>infra</i> n. 20)."
,k60a_24:" Lev. XI, 4."
,k60a_25:" Lit., 'I take out', sc. from the prohibition of consuming it."
,k60a_26:" The milk of a clean beast being permitted."
,k60a_27:" From the restriction of consuming it."
,k60a_28:" Even the blood of a clean beast is forbidden."
,k60a_29:" The second 'it' ([H]) in Lev. IV, 11. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 14. According to another interpretation the exclusion of blood is derived from the expression [H] (E.V. these) at the beginning of the verse (Rashi)."
,k60a_30:" Cf. Ker. 22a and v. <i>infra</i> n. 6."
,k60a_31:" I.e., human milk is not only Pentateuchally, but also Rabbinically permitted. How then is this ruling to be harmonized with the previous Baraitha cited from <i>Niddah</i> which regards human milk as an 'abominable thing'?"
,k60a_32:" Lit., 'that', the last mentioned Baraitha which permits the consumption of human milk."
,k60a_33:" And is collected in a utensil."
,k60a_34:" Which, regarding the milk as an 'abominable thing', forbids it to one older than twenty-four months."
,k60a_35:" As long as it remains within the body it is permitted; but as soon as it leaves it is forbidden as a preventive measure against the eating of animal blood."
,k60a_36:" I.e., which has not been separated from the body."
,k60a_37:" Ker. 21b."
,k60a_38:" I.e., even at an age when the child is capable of carrying small loads he may still be breast fed. How then is this to be reconciled with the Baraitha cited from <i>Niddah</i> (V. <i>supra</i> note 5)?"
,k60a_39:" Lit., 'one size' or 'limit'."
,k60a_40:" [H] (rt. [H] 'to groan'), one sighing painfully under an attack angina pectoris. V. Jast."
,k60a_41:" Goat's milk which has a curative effect (v. Rashi)."
,k60a_42:" Though the release of the milk from the animal's breast resembles the plucking of a plant from its root, or the unloading of a burden, which is forbidden on the Sabbath,"
,k60a_43:" [H], lit., 'as if by the back of the hand'."
,k60a_44:" [H] (rt. [H] Piel, 'break down', 'detach'). Milking an animal with one's hands is regarded as direct unloading (or detaching) which on the Sabbath is Pentateuchally forbidden (cf. Shab. 95a); releasing the milk by sucking is an unusual or indirect unloading or detaching which is only Rabbinically forbidden."
,k60a_45:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 357, n. 11."
,k60a_46:" Of Galatia or Gallia in Asia Minor,"
,k60a_47:" Lit., 'small pieces of straw',"
,k60a_48:" Lit., 'that went up'."
,k60a_49:" And thus prevents the proper flow of the water."
,k60a_50:" [H] lit., 'privately'."
,k60a_51:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 357. n. 14."
,k60a_52:" Were the gutter to remain choked up the overflow of the water would cause damage."
,k60a_53:" Must the break last for the child to be regarded as having ceased to suck."
,k60a_54:" A Baraitha, His statement was not merely the report of a ruling of Samuel who was but an Amora. "
}

txt:
<p>
At what age?<a id="k60a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who had it from Rab replied: Three months. Samuel, however, said: Thirty days; while R. Isaac stated in the name of R. Johanan: Fifty days. R. Shimi b. Abaye stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the statement of R. Isaac which was made in the name of R. Johanan. One can well understand [the respective views of] Rab and R. Johanan since they are guided by the child's keenness of perception.<a id="k60a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; According to Samuel, however, is such [precocity]<a id="k60a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; at all possible? &mdash; When Rami b. Ezekiel came<a id="k60a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he said, 'Pay no regard to those rules which my brother Judah laid down in the name of Samuel; for this said Samuel: As soon as [the child]<a id="k60a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; knows her'.<a id="k60a_6"><sup>6</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	A [divorced woman] once came to Samuel [declaring her refusal to suckle her son]. 'Go', he said to R. Dimi b. Joseph, 'and test her case'.<a id="k60a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; He went and placed her among a row of women and, taking hold of her child, carried him in front of them. When he came up to her [the child]<a id="k60a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; looked at her face with joy,<a id="k60a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but she turned her eye away from him. 'Lift up your eyes'. he called to her, 'come, take away your son'. How does a blind child know [its mother]? R. Ashi said: By the smell and the taste.<a id="k60a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A child must be breast fed for<a id="k60a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; twenty-four months. From that age onwards<a id="k60a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; he is to be regarded as one who sucks an abominable thing; these are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua said: [He may be breast fed] even for four or five years. If, however, he ceased<a id="k60a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; after the twenty-four months and started again<a id="k60a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; he is to be regarded as sucking an abominable thing.<a id="k60a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said, 'From that age onwards he is to be regarded as one who sucks an abominable thing'. But I could point out a contradiction: As it might have been presumed that human<a id="k60a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; milk is forbidden<a id="k60a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; since such [prohibition may be deduced from the following] logical argument: If in the case of a beast<a id="k60a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of which the law of contact<a id="k60a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; has been relaxed<a id="k60a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [the use of] its milk has nevertheless been restricted,<a id="k60a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; how much more should the use of his milk be restricted in the case of a human being in respect of whom the law of contact has been restricted;<a id="k60a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was specifically stated, The camel because it<a id="k60a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; cheweth the cud [&hellip; it is unclean unto you],<a id="k60a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; only 'it' is unclean; human milk, however, is not unclean but clean. As it might also have been presumed that only [human] milk is excluded<a id="k60a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; because [the use of milk] is not equally [forbidden] in all cases<a id="k60a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but that [human] blood is not excluded<a id="k60a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; since [the prohibition of eating blood] is equally applicable in all cases,<a id="k60a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it was specifically stated, it,<a id="k60a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; only 'it' is forbidden; human blood, however, is not forbidden but permitted.<a id="k60a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; And [in connection with this teaching] R. Shesheth has stated: Even [a Rabbinical] ordinance of abstinence is not applicable to it!<a id="k60a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is no difficulty. The latter<a id="k60a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [refers to milk] that has left [the breast]<a id="k60a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas the former<a id="k60a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [refers to milk] which has not left [the breast]. [This law, however], is reversed in the case of blood,<a id="k60a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; as it was taught: [Human] blood which [is found] upon a loaf of bread must be scraped off and [the bread] may only then be eaten; but that which is between the teeth<a id="k60a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; may be sucked without any scruple.<a id="k60a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master stated, 'R. Joshua said: [He may be breast fed] even for four or five years'. But was it not taught that R. Joshua said: Even when [he carries] his bundle on his shoulders?<a id="k60a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Both represent the same age.<a id="k60a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Joshua. 
</p><p>
	It was taught: R. Marinus said, A man suffering from an attack on the chest<a id="k60a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; may suck milk<a id="k60a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [from a beast] on the Sabbath.<a id="k60a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; Sucking is an act of unusual<a id="k60a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; unloading<a id="k60a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; against which, where pain<a id="k60a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; is involved, no preventive measure has been enacted by the Rabbis. R. Joseph stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Marinus. 
</p><p>
	It was taught: Nahum the Galatian<a id="k60a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; stated, If rubbish<a id="k60a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; was collected<a id="k60a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; in a gutter<a id="k60a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; it is permissible to crush it with one's foot quietly<a id="k60a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; on the Sabbath, and one need have no scruples about the matter. What is the reason? &mdash; Such repair is carried out in an unusual manner<a id="k60a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; against which, when loss is involved,<a id="k60a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure. R. Joseph stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the ruling of Nahum the Galatian. 
</p><p>
	'If he ceased, however, after the twenty-four months and started again he is to be regarded as one who sucks an abominable thing'. And for how long?<a id="k60a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Judah b. Habiba replied in the name of Samuel: For three days. Others read: R. Judah b. Habiba recited<a id="k60a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; before Samuel: 'For three days'. 
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A nursing mother whose husband died within twenty-four months [of the birth of their child] shall neither be betrothed nor married again
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k60b_1:" Were she to marry sooner and happen to become pregnant, the child would have to be taken from her breast before the proper time."
,k60b_2:" The shorter period is in his opinion quite sufficient for the suckling of a child."
,k60b_3:" <i>Var. lec</i>. 'Jonathan' (v.Tosef. Nid. Il)."
,k60b_4:" The words of R. Meir."
,k60b_5:" R. Judah's words."
,k60b_6:" As the period during which a child must be breast fed. What then was the object of the repetition of the same views?"
,k60b_7:" Read [H] (v. She'iltoth, Wayera, III). Cur. edd. [H] (rt. [H], Hif. 'to over-balance', 'compromise')."
,k60b_8:" Lit., 'the words of him who says'."
,k60b_9:" Beth Shammai."
,k60b_10:" Not, as R. Meir ruled, twenty-four."
,k60b_11:" Lit., 'the words of him who says'."
,k60b_12:" Beth Hillel."
,k60b_13:" And not, as R. Judah ruled, eighteen."
,k60b_14:" For three months, at least, after her remarriage the child's breast feeding need not be interrupted. The views of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel thus differ from those of R. Meir and R. Judah respectively."
,k60b_15:" That a nursing mother need not wait more than eighteen months."
,k60b_16:" In agreement with the view of Beth Hillel as interpreted by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k60b_17:" Lit., 'one'."
,k60b_18:" Who, according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's interpretation, require a nursing mother to postpone remarriage for no longer a period than fifteen months."
,k60b_19:" Abaye, who was a disciple of R. Joseph."
,k60b_20:" To consult him on the question his metayer addressed to him."
,k60b_21:" Yeb. 43a."
,k60b_22:" Abaye."
,k60b_23:" In an attempt to stop his metayer from acting on his decision."
,k60b_24:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k60b_25:" That was found in a slaughtered fowl (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.). The question of eating a properly laid egg with milk (v. next note) could of course never arise."
,k60b_26:" A preserve containing milk."
,k60b_27:" Though the answer is simple and obvious."
,k60b_28:" Lit., 'solve'."
,k60b_29:" Against the Master."
,k60b_30:" When the question was addressed to him. MS.M. adds; 'because at that time I forgot it'."
,k60b_31:" After her husband's death. She need not wait until the period for suckling mentioned above has expired."
,k60b_32:" Lit., 'with me was (such) an event'."
,k60b_33:" Before the expiration of the period prescribed for the breast feeding of the child."
,k60b_34:" Lit., 'Is it so'?"
,k60b_35:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 12."
,k60b_36:" The children having been entrusted to hired nurses. This actually happened in the case of his own wife Yaltha (v. She'iltoth, Wayera, XIII and cf. Golds. a.l.)."
,k60b_37:" Lit., 'return', 'retract'."
,k60b_38:" Hence it was safe to allow their widows to remarry (note 12). In the case of ordinary people, however, the nurse might well change her mind at any moment and the child would consequently have to fall back upon the nursing of his own mother. Should she then happen to be in a state of pregnancy the child would be in danger of starvation."
,k60b_39:" R. Papa and R. Huna."
,k60b_40:" The decision of R. Nahman reported by the woman,"
,k60b_41:" Pass. particip. of [H] 'to pursue', 'be anxious'."
,k60b_42:" Lit., 'to go'."
,k60b_43:" And she was there when her husband died."
,k60b_44:" At the time of his death."
,k60b_45:" And there he died."
,k60b_46:" When her husband's death occurred."
,k60b_47:" Though in all such cases it is obvious that the woman cannot be pregnant."
,k60b_48:" Before remarriage or betrothal. This is a precaution against a similar marriage or betrothal on the part of a normal woman who might be pregnant."
,k60b_49:" This is also the reading of She'iltoth. The reading of Tosef. Yeb. VI, 6 and 'Erub. 47a is 'R. Judah'."
,k60b_50:" After the husband's death. Cf. Yeb, and 'Erub. l.c."
,k60b_51:" It is consequently forbidden for any widow to marry again before the prescribed period of three months has elapsed even where the cause of the prohibition, i.e., that of possible pregnancy, does not apply. Similarly in the case of a nursing mother remarriage would obviously be forbidden even where the child died or is otherwise independent of his mother's nursing. Why then had R. Papa and R. Huna to rely solely upon the aged woman's report?"
,k60b_52:" R. Papa and R. Huna."
,k60b_53:" Since it is possible that her action was due to her desire to marry."
,k60b_54:" Lit., 'and went'."
,k60b_55:" Lit., 'and this is not'."
,k60b_56:" Who strangled her child."
,k60b_57:" Lit., 'behold that they gave her a son to give (him) suck'."
,k60b_58:" Of her own (v. <i>infra</i>) in order to maintain a healthy supply of milk."
,k60b_59:" Lit., 'with it'."
,k60b_60:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k60b_61:" [H], v. Jast., hops (Rashi)."
,k60b_62:" Cf. <i>infra</i> p. 363, n. 4."
,k60b_63:" Read [H] (cf. Rashi). Cur. edd. [H] (gourd)."
,k60b_64:" Lit., 'palm branch'."
,k60b_65:" [H], 'curdled milk', 'an appetizing sauce made of milk', (cf. Fleischer to Levy, and Jast.)."
,k60b_66:" During her pregnancy."
,k60b_67:" Read [H] (Aruk.). Cur. edd., [H]."
,k60b_68:" Or 'bald', reading [H] (cf. Rashi). Var. [H] 'gluttons', 'bibbers'."
,k60b_69:" Or 'gluttons'."
,k60b_70:" Or 'small fish' (Rashi) in brine (Jast.)."
,k60b_71:" Aruk (s.v. [H]), 'small eyes'."
,k60b_72:" During her pregnancy."
,k60b_73:" [H], a certain kind of reddish clay was believed to possess medicinal qualities as an astringent. Cf. Smith, <i>Dict. Gk. Rom. Ant</i>. s.v. <i>creta</i>, v. Jast."
,k60b_74:" Lit., 'black'. Cf. Jast. "
}

txt:
<p>
until [the completion of the] twenty-four months;<a id="k60b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; so R. Meir. R. Judah however, permits [remarriage] after eighteen months.<a id="k60b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Nathan<a id="k60b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; b. Joseph: Those<a id="k60b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, are the very words of Beth Shammai and these<a id="k60b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; are the very words of Beth Hillel; for Beth Shammai ruled: Twentyfour months,<a id="k60b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; while Beth Hillel ruled: Eighteen months!<a id="k60b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel replied, I will explain:<a id="k60b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; According to the view<a id="k60b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [that a child must be breast fed for] twenty-four months<a id="k60b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [a nursing mother] is permitted to marry again after twenty-one months,<a id="k60b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and according to the view<a id="k60b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [that it is to be breast fed for] eighteen months<a id="k60b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; she may marry again after fifteen months;<a id="k60b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; because a [nursing mother's] milk deteriorates only three months after [her conception].<a id="k60b_14"><sup>14</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	'Ulla stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the ruling of R. Judah;<a id="k60b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and Mar 'Ukba stated: R. Hanina permitted me to marry [a nursing woman] fifteen months after [the birth of her child].<a id="k60b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye's metayer once came to Abaye and asked him: Is it permissible to betroth [a nursing woman] fifteen months after [her child's birth]? &mdash; The other answered him: In the first place<a id="k60b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [whenever there is disagreement] between R. Meir and R. Judah the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the view of R. Judah;<a id="k60b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and, furthermore, [in a dispute between] Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the view of Beth Hillel;<a id="k60b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and while 'Ulla said, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah',<a id="k60b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar 'Ukba stated, 'R. Hanina permitted me to marry [a nursing woman] fifteen months after [the birth of her child]', how much more then [is there no need for you to wait the longer period] since you only intend betrothal. When he<a id="k60b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; came to R. Joseph<a id="k60b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; the latter told him, 'Both Rab and Samuel ruled that [a nursing woman] must wait twenty-four months exclusive of the day on which her child was born and exclusive of the day on which she is betrothed'.<a id="k60b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon he<a id="k60b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; ran<a id="k60b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; three parasangs<a id="k60b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; after him, (some say, one <i>parasang</i> along sand mounds), but failed to overtake him.
</p><p>
	Said Abaye: The statement made by the Rabbis that 'Even [a question about the permissibility of eating] an egg<a id="k60b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; with kutha<a id="k60b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; a man shall not<a id="k60b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; decide<a id="k60b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; in a district [which is under the jurisdiction] of his Master' was not due [to the view that this might] appear as an act of irreverence<a id="k60b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; but to the reason that [a disciple] would have no success in dealing with the matter. For I have in fact learned the tradition of Rab and Samuel and yet I did not get the opportunity of applying it.<a id="k60b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If a nursing mother] gave her child to a wet nurse or weaned him, or if he died, she is permitted to marry again forthwith.<a id="k60b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua intended to give a practical decision in accordance with this Baraitha, but an aged woman said to them, 'I have been in such a position<a id="k60b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Nahman forbade me [to marry again].<a id="k60b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely, this could not have been so;<a id="k60b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; for has not R. Nahman in fact permitted [such remarriage]<a id="k60b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; in the Exilarch's family?<a id="k60b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The family of the Exilarch was different [from ordinary people] because no nurse would break her agreement<a id="k60b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; with them.<a id="k60b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Papi to them:<a id="k60b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; Could you not have inferred it<a id="k60b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; from the following? It has been taught: [A married woman] who was always anxious<a id="k60b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; to spend her time<a id="k60b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; at her paternal home,<a id="k60b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; or who has some angry quarrel at her husband's home,<a id="k60b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; or whose husband was in prison,<a id="k60b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; or had gone to a country beyond the sea,<a id="k60b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; or was old or infirm,<a id="k60b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; or if she herself was barren, old,<a id="k60b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; incapable of procreation or a minor,<a id="k60b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; or if she miscarried after the death of her husband, or was in any other way incapacitated for propagation, must<a id="k60b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; wait three months.<a id="k60b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; These are the words of R. Meir. R. Jose,<a id="k60b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; however, permits betrothal or marriage forthwith.<a id="k60b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; And [in connection with this] R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Meir in respect of his restrictive measures!<a id="k60b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'This', they<a id="k60b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; answered him, 'did not occur to us'. The law is [that if the child] died [remarriage by his mother] is permitted [forthwith], but if she has weaned him [her remarriage] is<a id="k60b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; forbidden. Mar son of R. Ashi ruled: Even if the child died [the remarriage of the mother] is forbidden, it being possible that she has killed it so as to be in a position<a id="k60b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; to marry. It once actually happened that a mother strangled her child. This incident, however, is no proof.<a id="k60b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; That woman<a id="k60b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; was an imbecile, for it is not likely that [sane] women would strangle their children.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If a woman was given a child to suckle<a id="k60b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; she must not suckle together with it either her own child or the child of any friend of hers. If she agreed to a small allowance for board she must nevertheless eat much.<a id="k60b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; Whilst in charge of the child<a id="k60b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; she must not eat things which are injurious for the milk. Now that you said [that she must] not [suckle] 'her own child' was there any need [to state] 'nor the child of any friend of hers'? &mdash; It might have been assumed that only her own child [must not be suckled] because owing to her affection for it she might supply it with more [than the other child] but that the child of a friend of hers [may well be suckled] because if she had no surplus [of milk] she would not have given any at all. Hence we were taught [that even the child of a friend must not be suckled].
</p><p>
	'If she agreed to a small allowance for board she must nevertheless eat much'. Wherefrom? &mdash; R. Shesheth replied: From her own.<a id="k60b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Whilst in charge of the child she must not eat things which are injurious'. What are these? &mdash; R. Kahana replied: For instance, cuscuta,<a id="k60b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; lichen, small fishes and earth.<a id="k60b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: Even pumpkins and quinces. R. Papa said: Even a palm's heart<a id="k60b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; and unripe dates.<a id="k60b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: Even kamak<a id="k60b_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; and fish-hash. Some of these cause the flow of the milk to stop while others cause the milk to become turbid.
</p><p>
	A woman who couples in a mill will have epileptic children. One who couples on the ground will have children with long necks. [A woman] who treads<a id="k60b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; on the blood<a id="k60b_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; of an ass will have scabby<a id="k60b_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; children. One who eats<a id="k60b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; mustard will have intemperate children.<a id="k60b_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; One who eats<a id="k60b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; cress will have blear-eyed children. One who eats<a id="k60b_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; fish brine<a id="k60b_70"><sup>70</sup></a>&nbsp; will have children with blinking eyes.<a id="k60b_71"><sup>71</sup></a>&nbsp; One who eats<a id="k60b_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; clay<a id="k60b_73"><sup>73</sup></a>&nbsp; will have ugly children. One who drinks<a id="k60b_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; intoxicating liquor will have ungainly<a id="k60b_74"><sup>74</sup></a>&nbsp; children. One who eats<a id="k60b_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; meat and drinks wine will have children
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k61a_1:" [H] = [H], celery, parsley, or other green vegetables."
,k61a_2:" Or 'fleshy', cf. [H], 'flesh'."
,k61a_3:" [H], a fruit of the citrus family used (a) as one of the 'four kinds' constituting the ceremonial wreath on Tabernacles and also (b) as a preserve."
,k61a_4:" <i>Var. lec</i>. 'Papa' (Asheri and MS.M.)."
,k61a_5:" The mother of a child."
,k61a_6:" The father."
,k61a_7:" Lit., '(we) listen to her'."
,k61a_8:" Through the accumulation of the milk in her breast. Lit., 'the pain is hers'."
,k61a_9:" The breast feeding of a child by its mother."
,k61a_10:" A wife."
,k61a_11:" Her husband."
,k61a_12:" <i>Supra</i> 48a. A wife enjoys the advantages of her husband but not his disadvantages."
,k61a_13:" For the statement cited."
,k61a_14:" Gen. XX, 3 [H] of the rt. [H] 'to go up', 'rise'."
,k61a_15:" Eve, symbolizing all married women."
,k61a_16:" Gen. III, 20."
,k61a_17:" Adam, mentioned earlier in the verse."
,k61a_18:" [H], abs. [H], lit., 'gap'. As the bondwoman takes her place she should be exempt altogether from domestic duties,"
,k61a_19:" [H], guests that spend a month or a week."
,k61a_20:" [H] ([H] 'flying'), visitors who pay only a short visit."
,k61a_21:" Lit., 'another'."
,k61a_22:" If an increase in the number of bondwomen causes a corresponding increase in that of guests and visitors."
,k61a_23:" I.e., if she has the means."
,k61a_24:" Her husband."
,k61a_25:" MS.M., 'Hanina'."
,k61a_26:" She is not compelled but is advised (v. Rashi s.v. [H] a.l.)."
,k61a_27:" [H], rt. [H] 'to mix', sc. wine with water or spices."
,k61a_28:" Such personal services are calculated to nurse a husband's affections (Rash. l.c.)."
,k61a_29:" MS.M. 'Hanina'."
,k61a_30:" Read (v. marg. note, a.l.) [H]. Cur. edd. omit the <i>Waw</i>,"
,k61a_31:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 3."
,k61a_32:" In order to prevent undue intimacy between husband and wife during her period of Levitical uncleanness."
,k61a_33:" Lit., 'we have nothing in it'."
,k61a_34:" During her 'clean days', after menstruation and prior to ritual immersion, when marital relations are still forbidden."
,k61a_35:" V. <i>supra</i> note 10."
,k61a_36:" Lit., mouth'."
,k61a_37:" Cf. Golds. Others: (v. Jast.) 'chair'."
,k61a_38:" MS.M. 'Hanina'."
,k61a_39:" V. <i>supra</i> note 6."
,k61a_40:" Until he has finished serving the meal."
,k61a_41:" Which excite his appetite and any delay in satisfying it causes him extreme pain."
,k61a_42:" Must not be held back."
,k61a_43:" [H], the fourth month of the Hebrew calendar corresponding to July-August."
,k61a_44:" When the weather is extremely hot and spicy wine is tempting."
,k61a_45:" Of faintness due to the extreme pangs of hunger excited by the flavour of the dish,"
,k61a_46:" [H] the 'upper portions'."
,k61a_47:" Bomb. ed., 'Abuth'."
,k61a_48:" As it was served."
,k61a_49:" At the beginning of the meal, of the first dish."
,k61a_50:" Keeping back the others until the conclusion of the meal."
,k61a_51:" The immortal prophet, the maker of peace and herald of the Messianic era."
,k61a_52:" Lit., 'master'."
,k61a_53:" Of every dish he served."
,k61a_54:" Before he tasted of it himself."
,k61a_55:" After he himself and his guests had finished their meal."
,k61a_56:" V. <i>supra</i> note 7."
,k61a_57:" By failing to give the waiter a share as soon as the various dishes were served he caused him unnecessary pain of unsatisfied desire and hunger."
,k61a_58:" Or Yezdjird, one of the Kings of Persia."
,k61a_59:" [H] compound word: 'table' and 'maker'. "
}

txt:
<p>
of a robust constitution. One who eats eggs will have children with big eyes. One who eats fish will have graceful children. One who eats parsley<a id="k61a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; will have beautiful children. One who eats coriander will have stout<a id="k61a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; children. One who eats ethrog<a id="k61a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; will have fragrant children. The daughter of King Shapur, whose mother had eaten ethrog<a id="k61a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [while she was pregnant] with her, used to be presented before her father as his principal perfume. 
</p><p>
	R. Huna<a id="k61a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; related: R. Huna b. Hinena tested us [with the following question:] If she<a id="k61a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; says that she wishes to suckle her child and he<a id="k61a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; says that she shall not suckle it her wish is to be granted,<a id="k61a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; for she would be the sufferer.<a id="k61a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; What, [however, is the law] where he says that she shall suckle the child and she says that she will not suckle it? Whenever this<a id="k61a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; is not the practice in her family we, of course, comply with her wish; what, [however, is the law] where this is the practice in her family but not in his? Do we follow the practice of his family or that of hers? And we solved his problem from this: She<a id="k61a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; rises with him<a id="k61a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but does not go down with him.<a id="k61a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; What, said R. Huna, is the Scriptural proof?<a id="k61a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; For she is a man's wife,<a id="k61a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [she is to participate] in the rise of her husband but not in his descent. R. Eleazar said, [The proof is] from here: Because she<a id="k61a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; was the mother of all living<a id="k61a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; she was given [to her husband]<a id="k61a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; to live but not to suffer pain. 
</p><p>
	IF SHE BROUGHT HIM ONE BONDWOMAN etc. Her other duties, however, she must obviously perform; [but why?] Let her say to him, 'I brought you a wife in my place'!<a id="k61a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because he might reply, 'That bondwoman works for me and for herself, who will work for you!' 
</p><p>
	[IF SHE BROUGHT] TWO BONDWOMEN, SHE NEED NOT EVEN COOK OR SUCKLE etc. Her other duties, however, she must obviously perform; [but why]? Let her say to him, 'I brought you another wife who will work for me and for her, while the first one [will work] for you and for herself!' &mdash; Because he might reply, 'Who will do the work for our guests<a id="k61a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and occasional visitors!'<a id="k61a_20"><sup>20</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	IF THREE, SHE NEED NEITHER MAKE READY HIS BED. Her other duties, however, she must perform; [but why]? Let her say to him, 'I brought you a third one<a id="k61a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; to attend upon our guests and occasional visitors!' &mdash; Because he might reply, 'The more the number of the household the more the number of guests and occasional visitors'. If so,<a id="k61a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [the same plea could also be advanced] even [when the number of bondwomen was] four! &mdash; [In the case of] four bondwomen, since their number is considerable they assist one another. 
</p><p>
	R. Hana, or some say R. Samuel b. Nahmani, stated: [SHE BROUGHT] does not mean that she had actually brought; but: Wherever she is in a position to bring,<a id="k61a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; even though she has not brought any. A Tanna taught: [A wife is entitled to the same privileges] whether she brought [a bondwoman] to him<a id="k61a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; or whether she saved up for one out of her income. 
</p><p>
	IF FOUR, SHE MAY LOUNGE IN AN EASY CHAIR. R. Isaac b. Hanania<a id="k61a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; stated in the name of R. Huna: Although it has been said, SHE MAY LOUNGE IN AN EASY CHAIR she should<a id="k61a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; nevertheless fill<a id="k61a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; for him his cup, make ready his bed and wash his face, hands and feet.<a id="k61a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Hanania<a id="k61a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; further<a id="k61a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; stated in the name of R. Huna: All kinds of work which a wife performs for her husband a menstruant also may perform for her husband, with the exception of filling<a id="k61a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; his cup, making ready his bed and washing his face, hands and feet.<a id="k61a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; As to 'the making ready of his bed' Raba explained that [the prohibition] applies only in his presence but [if it is done] in his absence it does not matter.<a id="k61a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; With regard to 'the filling of his cup'. Samuel's wife made a change<a id="k61a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [by serving] him with her left hand. [The wife of] Abaye placed it<a id="k61a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; on the edge<a id="k61a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; of the wine cask. Raba's [wife placed it] at the head-side of his couch, and R. Papa's [wife put it] on his foot-stool.<a id="k61a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Hanania<a id="k61a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; further<a id="k61a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; stated: All [foodstuffs] may be held back from the waiter<a id="k61a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; except meat and wine.<a id="k61a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Hisda: [This applies only to] fat meat and old wine. Raba said: Fat meat<a id="k61a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; throughout the year but old wine only in the Tammuz<a id="k61a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; season.<a id="k61a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	R. Anan b. Tahlifa related: I was once standing in the presence of Samuel when they brought him a dish of mushrooms, and, had he not given me [some of it], I would have been exposed to danger.<a id="k61a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; I, related R. Ashi, was once standing before R. Kahana when they brought him slices<a id="k61a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; of turnips in vinegar, and had he not given me some, I would have been exposed to danger. 
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: Even a fragrant date [if not tasted may expose one to danger].<a id="k61a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; This is the rule: Any foodstuff that has a strong flavour or an acrid taste [will expose a man to danger<a id="k61a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; if he is not allowed to taste of it]. 
</p><p>
	Both Abbuha<a id="k61a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; b. Ihi and Minjamin b. Ihi [shewed consideration for their waiter] the one giving [him a portion] of every kind of dish<a id="k61a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other gave [him a portion]<a id="k61a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; of one kind only.<a id="k61a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; With the former Elijah<a id="k61a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; conversed, with the latter he did not. 
</p><p>
	[It was related of] two pious men, and others say of R. Mari and R. Phinehas the sons of R. Hisda, that one of them<a id="k61a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; gave [a share to his waiter]<a id="k61a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; first<a id="k61a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other gave him last.<a id="k61a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; With the one who gave [the waiter his share] first, Elijah<a id="k61a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; conversed; with the one, however, who gave his waiter last, Elijah did not converse.<a id="k61a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	Amemar, Mar Zutra and R. Ashi were once sitting at the gate of King Yezdegerd<a id="k61a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; when the King's table-steward<a id="k61a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; passed them by. R. Ashi, observing that Mar Zutra
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k61b_1:" V. Rashi."
,k61b_2:" Lit., 'thus'."
,k61b_3:" R. Ashi."
,k61b_4:" [H], lit., 'another thing', sc. 'something unnameable', e.g., swine, leprosy, idolatry and sodomy."
,k61b_5:" One of the pieces of meat."
,k61b_6:" Mar Zutra (v. Rashi)."
,k61b_7:" Lit., 'he went',"
,k61b_8:" That welled up in her mouth as a result of the acrid flavour of the fruit."
,k61b_9:" Lit., 'it became (transparent) like glass' (v. Rashi)."
,k61b_10:" Lit., 'spit (and) eject' (bis)."
,k61b_11:" Lit., 'to stand', v. Rashi."
,k61b_12:" Such as a horse or an ass or (according to another interpretation) 'male beasts' (v. Rashi and cf. BaH a.l.)."
,k61b_13:" Cattle or (according to the second interpretation in n. 9) 'female beasts'."
,k61b_14:" Or 'swollen', v. next note."
,k61b_15:" Because the spinner must frequently moisten the thread, with his saliva (v. Jast.). Aliter: 'the flax causes an offensive smell in the mouth and distends the lips' (cf. Rashi and Golds.)."
,k61b_16:" That has been used for the roasting of meat on a festival, may at the time be put aside (v. Bezah 28b)."
,k61b_17:" Whom a woman brought to her husband at her marriage (v. our Mishnah)."
,k61b_18:" That these, even without the pubic hairs, are sufficient indication of pubes (v. Nid. 52a)."
,k61b_19:" Belorith [H] (cf. Sanh, Sonc. ed. p. 114, n. 5). An Israelite trimming the hairs of a heathen must withdraw his hand at a distance of three finger's breadth on every side of the forelock (A.Z. 29a)."
,k61b_20:" [H], is forbidden to be spread on a wound because it gives the appearance of an incised imprint (v. Mak. 21)."
,k61b_21:" Forbidden, if made by a heathen, because it is smeared over with lard."
,k61b_22:" [H], an opinion or dictum of Rabbis, not recorded in a Mishnah or Baraitha, reported by their disciples or colleagues."
,k61b_23:" An aid to the recollection as to which statements were made by R. Malkia and R. Malkio respectively."
,k61b_24:" [H], a general term for Mishnah and Baraitha in contradiction to [H] (v. <i>supra</i> note 7)."
,k61b_25:" I.e., more authoritative than a reported statement. Malkia [H] whose name closely resembles (queen) [H] (and not Malkio) is to be associated with the Mishnah and the Baraitha that are designated queen."
,k61b_26:" R. Hanina and R. Papa."
,k61b_27:" Which is recorded in our Mishnah. According to R. Papa the comment on it must be that of R. Malkia (cf. <i>supra</i> note 10) while according to R. Hanina it is included among the statements attributed to R. Malkio, v. A.Z. 29a, and Mak. 21a."
,k61b_28:" R. Eliezer. What difference is there for all practical purposes whether the reason for the ruling Is unchastity or idiocy?"
,k61b_29:" V. Jast. Or 'wooden cubs', counters in a game (cf. Levy)."
,k61b_30:" [H] or [H] <i>nardeshir</i>, the name of a game played on a board; 'chess' (Rashi). [So named after its inventor Ardeshir Babekan, v. Krauss T.A. III, p. 113]. A woman who spends her time in this manner may be exposed to the temptation of unchastity but is in no danger of falling into idiocy."
,k61b_31:" Lit., 'IF A MAN FORBADE BY VOW HIS WIFE FROM INTERCOURSE'."
,k61b_32:" After this period it is the duty of the husband either to have his vow disallowed or to release his wife by divorce."
,k61b_33:" From their homes,"
,k61b_34:" Ex. XXI, 10."
,k61b_35:" [H] ([rt. [H]], <I>Piel</I>, 'to walk about'), <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">men who have no need to pursue an occupation to earn their living and are able 'to walk about' idly.</font>"
,k61b_36:" Who carry produce from the villages to town and whose occupation <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">requires their absence from their home town during the whole of the week.</font>"
,k61b_37:" Who travel longer distances from their homes."
,k61b_38:" <font style=\"background-color:#C0FFFF\">Whose sea voyages take them away for many months at a time.</font>"
,k61b_39:" Who allow TWO WEEKS."
,k61b_40:" Intercourse with whom is forbidden for two weeks (v. Lev. XII, 5),"
,k61b_41:" In whose case the prohibition is restricted to one week (ibid. 2)."
,k61b_42:" The fact that the longer period of two weeks has Pentateuchal sanction should entitle a husband to vow abstention for a similar length of time."
,k61b_43:" The period of whose uncleanness is only seven days (v. Lev. XV, 19)."
,k61b_44:" Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel."
,k61b_45:" Lit., 'Master', sc. Beth Hillel."
,k61b_46:" Such as a quarrel between husband and wife resulting in a vow of abstention."
,k61b_47:" Menstruation which is a monthly occurrence. Births are not of such regular occurrence."
,k61b_48:" Beth Shammai."
,k61b_49:" Abstention on account of his vow."
,k61b_50:" Birth. Menstruation is not the result of a husband's action."
,k61b_51:" For two weeks according to Beth Shammai or one week according to Beth Hillel."
,k61b_52:" [H], lit., 'a door'; some ground on which to justify his plea that had he known it he would never have made that vow; v. Ned, 21."
,k61b_53:" A competent authority, if satisfied with the reason, may under such conditions disallow a vow."
,k61b_54:" Rab and Samuel."
,k61b_55:" To supply his wife's needs."
,k61b_56:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 11. Why then should Rab and Samuel unnecessarily repeat the same arguments?"
,k61b_57:" The vow against marital duty."
,k61b_58:" A vow forbidding other benefits."
,k61b_59:" Since the appointment of a steward is feasible."
,k61b_60:" The vow against marital duty. "
}

txt:
<p>
turned pale in the face, took up with his finger [some food from the dish and] put it to his mouth. 'You have spoilt the King's meal' [the table-steward]<a id="k61b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; cried. 'Why did you do such a thing?' he was asked [by the King's officers].<a id="k61b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The man who prepared that dish',<a id="k61b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k61b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; replied, 'has rendered the King's food objectionable'. 'Why?' they asked him. 'I noticed', he replied, 'a piece of leprous swine<a id="k61b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; flesh in it'. They examined [the dish] but did not find [such a thing]. Thereupon he took hold of his finger and put it on it,<a id="k61b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; saying, 'Did you examine this part?' They examined it and found it [to be as R. Ashi had said]. 'Why did you rely upon a miracle?' the Rabbis asked him. 'I saw', he replied, 'the demon of leprosy hovering over him'.<a id="k61b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A Roman once said to a woman, 'Will you marry me?' &mdash; 'No,' she replied. Thereupon<a id="k61b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he brought some pomegranates, split them open and ate them in her presence. She kept on swallowing all the saliva<a id="k61b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; that irritated her, but he did not give her [any of the fruit] until [her body] became swollen.<a id="k61b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Ultimately he said to her, 'If I cure you, will you marry me?' &mdash; 'Yes', she replied. Again<a id="k61b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he brought some pomegranates, split them and ate them in her presence. 'Spit out at once, and again and again',<a id="k61b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he said to her, all saliva that irritated you'. [She did so] until [the matter] issued forth from her body in the shape of a green palm-branch; and she recovered. 
</p><p>
	AND WORKING IN WOOL. Only IN WOOL but not in flax. Whose [view then is represented in] our Mishnah? &mdash; It is that of R. Judah. For it was taught: [Her husband] may not compel her to wait<a id="k61b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; upon his father or upon his son, or to put straw before his beast;<a id="k61b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but he may compel her to put straw before his herd.<a id="k61b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah said: Nor may he compel her to work in flax because flax causes one's mouth to be sore<a id="k61b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and makes one's lips stiff.<a id="k61b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; This refers, however, only to Roman flax. 
</p><p>
	R. ELIEZER SAID: EVEN IF SHE BROUGHT HIM A HUNDRED BONDWOMEN. R. Malkio stated in the name of R. Adda b. Ahabah: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer. Said R. Hanina the son of R. Ika: [The rulings concerning] a spit,<a id="k61b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; bondwomen<a id="k61b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and follicles<a id="k61b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [were laid down by] R. Malkio; [but those concerning] a forelock,<a id="k61b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; wood-ash<a id="k61b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and cheese<a id="k61b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [were laid down by] R. Malkia. R. Papa, however, said: [If the statement is made on] a Mishnah or a Baraitha [the author is] R. Malkia [but if on] a reported statement<a id="k61b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [the author is] R. Malkio. And your mnemonic<a id="k61b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is, 'The Mishnah<a id="k61b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is queen'.<a id="k61b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the practical difference between them?<a id="k61b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The statement on] Bondwomen.<a id="k61b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID etc. Is not this the same view as that of the first Tanna?<a id="k61b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The practical difference between them [is the case of a woman] who plays with little cubs<a id="k61b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; or [is addicted to] checkers.<a id="k61b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>


    </TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%" bgcolor="#666666">&nbsp;</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#666666" valign="top"><!-- Left screen margin -->
      <A name="E145"></A>
      <TABLE border="0" BGCOLOR="#ddccbb" width="95%" cellpadding="5">
	<TR>
	  <TD align="center"><img src="../arrow2.gif"><br>
	    <A href="../dilling/145.html"><FONT size="-1">Dilling Exhibit 145<br>Begins</A></FONT></TD>
	</TR>
      </TABLE>
    </TD>
    <TD BGCOLOR="#ddccbb">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg" width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD background="../backg01.jpg">



	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN FORBADE HIMSELF BY VOW TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH HIS WIFE<a id="k61b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [SHE MUST CONSENT TO THE DEPRIVATION FOR] TWO WEEKS;<a id="k61b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH HILLEL RULED: [ONLY FOR] ONE WEEK.<a id="k61b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
<P>
STUDENTS MAY GO AWAY<a id="k61b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; TO STUDY THE TORAH, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION [OF THEIR WIVES FOR A PERIOD OF] THIRTY DAYS; LABOURERS [ONLY FOR] ONE WEEK.
<P>
<font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">THE TIMES FOR CONJUGAL DUTY PRESCRIBED IN THE TORAH<a id="k61b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE: FOR MEN OF INDEPENDENCE,<a id="k61b_35"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">35</font></sup></a>&nbsp; EVERY DAY; FOR LABOURERS, TWICE A WEEK; FOR ASS-DRIVERS,<a id="k61b_36"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">36</font></sup></a>&nbsp; ONCE A WEEK; FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS,<a id="k61b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; ONCE IN THIRTY DAYS; FOR SAILORS,<a id="k61b_38"><sup><font style="background-color:#FF9DFF">38</font></sup></a>&nbsp; ONCE IN SIX MONTHS. THESE ARE THE RULINGS OF R. ELIEZER.</font>
<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason of Beth Shammai?<a id="k61b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They derive their ruling from [the law relating to] a woman who bears a female child.<a id="k61b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; And Beth Hillel? &mdash; They derive their ruling from [the law relating to] one who bears a male child.<a id="k61b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; Why should not Beth Hillel also derive their ruling from [the law relating to] a woman who bears a female child?<a id="k61b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If they had derived their ruling from [the law relating to] a woman who bears a child they should indeed have ruled thus, but [the fact is that] Beth Hillel derive their ruling from [the law of] the menstruant.<a id="k61b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; On what principle do they<a id="k61b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; differ? &mdash; One<a id="k61b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that the usual<a id="k61b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; [is to be inferred] from the usual,<a id="k61b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other<a id="k61b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that what a husband has caused<a id="k61b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; should be derived from that which he has caused.<a id="k61b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab stated: They<a id="k61b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; differ only in the case of one who specified [the period of abstention] but where he did not specify the period it is the opinion of both that he must divorce her forthwith and give her the <i>kethubah</i>. Samuel, however, stated: Even where the period had not been specified the husband may delay [his divorce],<a id="k61b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; since it might be possible for him to discover some reason<a id="k61b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; for [the remission of] his vow.<a id="k61b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely, they<a id="k61b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; once disputed this question; for have we not learned: If a man forbade his wife by vow to have any benefit from him he may, for thirty days, appoint a steward,<a id="k61b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; but if for a longer period he must divorce her and give her the <i>kethubah</i>. And [in connection with this] Rab stated: This ruling applies only where he specified [the period] but where he did not specify it he must divorce her forthwith and give her the <i>kethubah</i>, while Samuel stated: Even where the period had not been specified the husband may also postpone [his divorce],<a id="k61b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; since it might be possible for him, to discover some grounds<a id="k61b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; for [the annulment of his vow]?<a id="k61b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Both disputes are] required. For if [their views] had been stated in the former<a id="k61b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; only it might have been assumed that only in that case did Rab maintain his view, since [the appointment] of a steward is not possible but that in the second case<a id="k61b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; where [the appointment] of a steward is possible he agrees with Samuel. And If the second case<a id="k61b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; only had been stated it might have been assumed that only in that case did Samuel maintain his view<a id="k61b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; but that in the former case<a id="k61b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; he agrees with Rab. [Hence both statements were] necessary. 
</p><p>
	STUDENTS MAY GO AWAY TO STUDY etc. For how long [may they go away] with the permission [of their wives]? &mdash; For as long as they desire.
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k62a_1:" That students should (a) be permitted to be away from their wives even with their consent, and (b) remain at home (v. Rashi). According to one opinion the restrictions spoken of here apply to labourers only. Students are allowed greater freedom. (V. Tosaf. s.v. [H], a.l.)."
,k62a_2:" Lit., 'here'."
,k62a_3:" I Chron. XXVII, emphasis on 'month by month'."
,k62a_4:" I Kings V, 28."
,k62a_5:" Solomon had sufficient men for the work and required each group for no longer than one month out of every three. The study of the Torah demands more time."
,k62a_6:" The stipend allowed by the king. This allowance enabled a husband to provide a comfortable living for his wife who, in return, consented to his absence from home every alternate month. In the case of students, however, whose study brings no worldly reward to their wives, the period of absence from home should not exceed one month in every three."
,k62a_7:" The following discussion is introduced here on account of the difference of opinion between Rab and R. Johanan on the application of Scriptural texts, which is characteristic of this as of the previous discussion."
,k62a_8:" Lit., 'body'."
,k62a_9:" The loins are in the middle of the body."
,k62a_10:" Ezek. XXI, 11."
,k62a_11:" Ibid. 12. The prophet's sigh is accompanied by shattering effects on all parts of the body."
,k62a_12:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 369, n, 5."
,k62a_13:" [H], lit., 'sons of the lesson', i.e., students domiciled in the college town who are able to live in their own homes and to attend the college for lessons only."
,k62a_14:" This admonition is addressed to those who pursue worldly occupations."
,k62a_15:" Without toiling for it."
,k62a_16:" Ps. CXXVII, 2. E.V., unto his beloved. ushshk is homiletically treated as coming from the rt.[H] 'to shake', 'chase away'."
,k62a_17:" 'Those who chase their sleep away'."
,k62a_18:" [H]. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. <i>talmid hakam</i>."
,k62a_19:" In sitting up all night waiting for the return of their husbands from the house of study."
,k62a_20:" As a reward for the consideration they shew to their studious husbands. Since the wives of students who come from other towns would not be expecting their husbands to return home every day, the reference must obviously be to those who live in the college town, i.e., the day students, which proves that even these remain all night at the college."
,k62a_21:" How could men who spend their nights in study be expected to perform the marital duty daily?"
,k62a_22:" A teacher of children (v. <i>supra</i> 50a) who made an unostentatious but comfortable living."
,k62a_23:" [H] 'mansion', 'palace', i.e., his own home (cf. 'the Englishman's home is his castle')."
,k62a_24:" [H], MS.M. [H] 'a detachment of soldiers',"
,k62a_25:" To exact from him service or money. As his wants were moderate, he had no need to be under obligation to anyone for his food or drink and had no need to go fat to seek his livelihood. A man in such a position might well be described as a man of independence."
,k62a_26:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k62a_27:" palestine, which lay to the west of Babylon where this statement was made,"
,k62a_28:" This is told in illustration of the physical strength enjoyed by the Palestinians,"
,k62a_29:" And the three were in danger of falling into the pool of water over which the floor was built,"
,k62a_30:" Grasping it with one hand,"
,k62a_31:" With his other hand."
,k62a_32:" Lit., 'to support him'."
,k62a_33:" Lit., 'here'. Our Mishnah."
,k62a_34:" MS.M., R. Hanin b. Papa."
,k62a_35:" The author of the first clause of out Mishnah, which deals with the ease of a vow."
,k62a_36:" Lit., 'fold himself up'."
,k62a_37:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 369. n. 5."
,k62a_38:" Whose times only could be affected by an abstinence of ONE WEEK (Beth Hillel) or TWO WEEKS (Beth Shammai). The other classes of persons enumerated, whose times are once in thirty days or at longer intervals, would not thereby be affected. "
}

txt:
<p>
What should be the usual periods?<a id="k62a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab said: One month at the college<a id="k62a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and one month at home; for it is said in the Scriptures, In any matter of the courses which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year.<a id="k62a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, said: One month at the college and two months at home; for it is said in the Scriptures, A month they were in Lebanon and two months at home.<a id="k62a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Why does not Rab also derive his opinion from this text?<a id="k62a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The building of the holy Temple is different [from the study of the Torah] since it could be carried on by others.<a id="k62a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Then why does not R. Johanan derive his opinion from the former text?<a id="k62a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There [the conditions were] different because every man was in receipt of relief.<a id="k62a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab said:<a id="k62a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; A sigh breaks down half of the human constitution,<a id="k62a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said in Scripture, Sigh, therefore, thou son of man; with the breaking of thy loins<a id="k62a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and with bitterness shalt thou sigh.<a id="k62a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan, however, said: Even all the human constitution, for it is said in Scripture, And it shall be when they say unto thee: Wherefore sighest thou? that thou shalt say: Because of the tidings, for it cometh; and every heart shall melt, and all hands shall be slack, and every spirit shall faint, and all knees shall drip with water.<a id="k62a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; As to R. Johanan, is it not also written, 'With the breaking of thy loins'? &mdash; [The meaning of] this is that when [the breaking] begins it does so from the loins. And as to Rab, is it not also written, 'And every heart shall melt, and all hands shall be slack, and every spirit shall be faint'? &mdash; The report of the holy Temple is different since [the calamity] was very severe. 
</p><p>
	An Israelite and an idolater were once walking together on the same road and the idolater could not keep pace with the Israelite. Reminding him of the destruction of the holy Temple [the latter] grew faint and sighed; but still the idolater was unable to keep pace with him. 'Do you not say', the idolater asked him, 'that a sigh breaks half of the human body'? &mdash; 'This applies only', the other replied, 'to a fresh calamity but not to this one with which we are familiar. As people say: A woman who is accustomed to bereavements is not alarmed [when another occurs]'. 
</p><p>
	MEN OF INDEPENDENCE EVERY DAY. What is meant by tayyalin?<a id="k62a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba replied: Day students.<a id="k62a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: [These are the men] of whom it is written in Scripture, It is vain for you<a id="k62a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; that ye rise early, and sit up late, ye that eat of the bread of toil; so He giveth<a id="k62a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; unto those who chase their sleep away;<a id="k62a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'these',<a id="k62a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac explained, 'are the wives of the scholars,<a id="k62a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; who chase the sleep from their eyes<a id="k62a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; in this world and achieve thereby the life of the world to come',<a id="k62a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet you Say. Day students'!<a id="k62a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [The explanation]. however, said Abaye, is in agreement [with a statement] of Rab who said [a man of independence is one.] for instance, like R. Samuel b. Shilath<a id="k62a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; who eats of his own, drinks of his own and sleeps in the shadow of his mansion<a id="k62a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and a king's officer<a id="k62a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; never passes his door.<a id="k62a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; When Rabin came<a id="k62a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated: [A man of independence is one]. for instance, like the pampered men of the West,<a id="k62a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abbahu<a id="k62a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; was once standing in a bath house, two slaves supporting him, when [the floor of] the bath house collapsed under him.<a id="k62a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; By chance he was near a column [upon which] he climbed<a id="k62a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; taking up the slaves with him.<a id="k62a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan was once ascending a staircase, R. Ammi and R. Assi supporting him, when the staircase collapsed under him. He himself climbed up and brought them up with him. Said the Rabbis to him, 'Since [your strength is] such, why do you require support?<a id="k62a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Otherwise', he replied. what [strength] will I reserve for the time of my old age?' 
</p><p>
	FOR LABOURERS TWICE A WEEK. Was it not, however, taught: Labourers, once a week? &mdash; R. Jose the son of R. Hanina replied: This is no difficulty; the former<a id="k62a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [speaks of labourers] who do their work in their own town while the latter [speaks of those] who do their work in another town &mdash; So it was also taught: Labourers [perform their marital duties] twice a week. This applies only [to those] who do their work in their own town, but for those who do their work in another town [the time is only] once a week   
</p><p>
	FOR ASS-DRIVERS ONCE A WEEK. Rabhah son of R. Hanan<a id="k62a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; said to Abaye: Did the Tanna<a id="k62a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; go to all this trouble<a id="k62a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; to teach us [merely the law relating to] the man of independence<a id="k62a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; and the labourer?<a id="k62a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: No;
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k62b_1:" Even in respect of the other classes a vow may be made for the specified periods only."
,k62b_2:" In the case of sailors. How could these be affected by an abstention of ONE WEEK or TWO WEEKS?"
,k62b_3:" Proverb (Yoma 18b. Yeb. 32b). The latter experiences the pangs of hunger much more than the former who can eat the bread should he decide to use it up. A sailor's wife may partially satisfy her desires by the hope that her husband may at any moment return. A vow extinguishes all her hope; and she must not, therefore, be allowed to suffer longer than the periods indicated."
,k62b_4:" Var. 'Raba' (MS.S. and Asheri)."
,k62b_5:" I.e., may an ass-driver become a camel-driver without the permission of his wife, in view of the longer absence from home which the new occupation will involve."
,k62b_6:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k62b_7:" Proverb, (Sotah 20a, 21b). A woman prefers a poor living in the enjoyment of the company of her husband to a more luxurious one in his absence. She would, therefore, rather have her husband for a longer period at home, though as a result he would be earning less, than be deprived of his company for longer periods. though as a result he would be earning more."
,k62b_8:" Var. lec. 'Mattena' (Alfasi)."
,k62b_9:" Var. Iec, 'Raba' (Asheri)."
,k62b_10:" And the <i>halachah</i> would be in agreement with the Sages who ate the majority."
,k62b_11:" I.e., his (Raba's) contemporaries."
,k62b_12:" According to whose statement the Sages permitted students to leave their homes for long periods (v. <i>supra</i> n. 3)."
,k62b_13:" I.e., they die before their time as a penalty for the neglect of their wives (v. Rashi)."
,k62b_14:" A town on the Tigris, noted for Its commerce and its large Jewish population."
,k62b_15:" Lit., 'one day'."
,k62b_16:" Lit., 'now',"
,k62b_17:" Lit., 'his soul rested', sc, came to its eternal test."
,k62b_18:" Lit., 'when'."
,k62b_19:" Lit., 'from the eve of Sabbath to the eve of Sabbath'."
,k62b_20:" Ps. 1, 3."
,k62b_21:" Cf. B.K. 82a."
,k62b_22:" MS.M., 'R. Judah'."
,k62b_23:" Lit., 'was going and sitting'."
,k62b_24:" [H] 'twilight', sc, of the Sabbath eve."
,k62b_25:" Read with MS.M., [H] Cur. edd., [H] &hellip; [H] (sing.) may refer to R. Jannai."
,k62b_26:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p' 375' n. 18,"
,k62b_27:" Lit., 'bend', a mark of mourning for the dead,"
,k62b_28:" [H]"
,k62b_29:" Cf. Eccl, X, 5'"
,k62b_30:" So MS.M., reading [H]."
,k62b_31:" He was about to marry R. Hiyya's daughter (Rashi)."
,k62b_32:" V. Glos,"
,k62b_33:" Lit., 'the soul of the girl rested'. V. <i>supra</i> p' 375, n. 10."
,k62b_34:" The unexpected death of the bride being due to providential intervention to prevent an undesirable union,"
,k62b_35:" Lit., 'they sat and looked in',"
,k62b_36:" David's son (II Sam, III, 4)."
,k62b_37:" One of David's wives (ibid.)."
,k62b_38:" As the latter was not a descendent of the anointed king's family it was not proper for his daughter to be united in marriage with one who was."
,k62b_39:" Lit., 'he went'."
,k62b_40:" Rabbi,"
,k62b_41:" Rabbi's son."
,k62b_42:" The marriage to be celebrated at the end of this period."
,k62b_43:" The period of study prior to the marriage."
,k62b_44:" On account of his apparent fickleness,"
,k62b_45:" In being influenced by affection to shorten the courting interval and to hasten the marriage day."
,k62b_46:" Who also hastened the day of His union with Israel,"
,k62b_47:" Ex, XV, 17, i.e., only after settlement in the promised land was the sanctuary (the symbol of the union between God and Israel) to be built."
,k62b_48:" Ex. XXV, 8, i.e., while still in the wilderness. (V. p. 376, n. 22)."
,k62b_49:" Having been separated from him for more than ten years (Rashi, cf. Yeb. 34b)."
,k62b_50:" At the conclusion of the marriage festivities."
,k62b_51:" Lit., 'did not know (how) to go'."
,k62b_52:" Lit., 'infer from this'."
,k62b_53:" Read with MS.M., [H] Cut. edd., [H] may be rendered 'he lifted up her eye' i.e., he attracted her attention. (v. Jast. s.v. [H])."
,k62b_54:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p' 355, n. 12."
,k62b_55:" Lit., 'her spirit fled'."
,k62b_56:" For depriving herself of her husband so many years for the sake of the Torah."
,k62b_57:" Who entered his house unexpectedly and thereby neatly caused the death of his wife."
,k62b_58:" Who was unknown to his father."
,k62b_59:" I.e., had he remained at home and attended to the education of his son."
,k62b_60:" Lit., is 'there'."
,k62b_61:" Lit., 'said'."
,k62b_62:" Eccl. IV, is."
,k62b_63:" Three generations of scholars all living at the same time, v. B.B. Sonc. ed. p. 237. n. 8."
,k62b_64:" One of the three richest men of Jerusalem at the time of the Vespasian siege. V. Git. 56a. "
}

txt:
<p>
to all.<a id="k62b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But was it not stated ONCE IN SIX MONTHS?<a id="k62b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; One who has bread in his basket is not like one who has no bread in his basket.<a id="k62b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Rabbah<a id="k62b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; son of R. Hanan to Abaye: What [is the law where] an ass-driver becomes a camel-driver?<a id="k62b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: A woman prefers one <i>kab</i><a id="k62b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; with frivolity to ten <i>kab</i><a id="k62b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; with abstinence.<a id="k62b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	FOR SAILORS, ONCE IN SIX MONTHS. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. ELIEZER. R. Beruna<a id="k62b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; stated in the name of Rab:<a id="k62b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Eliezer. R. Adda b. Ahabah, however, stated in the name of Rab: This is the view of R. Eliezer only. but the Sages ruled: Students may go away to study Torah without the permission [of their wives even for] two or three years.<a id="k62b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba stated: The Rabbis<a id="k62b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; relied on R. Adda b. Ahabah<a id="k62b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and act accordingly at the risk of [losing] their lives.<a id="k62b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus R. Rehumi who was frequenting [the school] of Raba at Mahuza<a id="k62b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; used to return home on the Eve of every Day of Atonement. On one occasion<a id="k62b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; he was so attracted by his subject [that he forgot to return home]. His wife was expecting [him every moment, saying.] 'He is coming soon,<a id="k62b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; he is coming soon'<a id="k62b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; As he did not arrive she became so depressed that tears began to flow from her eyes. He was [at that moment] sitting on a roof. The roof collapsed under him and he was killed.<a id="k62b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	How often<a id="k62b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; are scholars to perform their marital duties? &mdash; Rab Judah in the name of Samuel replied: Every Friday night.<a id="k62b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	That bringeth forth its fruit in its season,<a id="k62b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah, and some say R. Huna, or again. as others say. R. Nahman, stated: This [refers to the man] who performs his marital duty every Friday night.<a id="k62b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Judah<a id="k62b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; the son of R. Hiyya and son-in-law of R. Jannai was always spending his time<a id="k62b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; in the school house but every Sabbath eve<a id="k62b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; he came home. Whenever he arrived the people saw<a id="k62b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; a pillar of light moving before him. Once he was so attracted by his subject of study [that he forgot to return home]. Not Seeing<a id="k62b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; that Sign. R. Jannai said to those [around him], 'Lower<a id="k62b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; his bed,<a id="k62b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; for had Judah been alive he would not have neglected the performance of his marital duties'. This [remark] was like an error that proceedeth from the ruler,<a id="k62b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; for [in consequence] Judah's<a id="k62b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; soul returned to its eternal rest. 
</p><p>
	Rabbi was engaged in the arrangements for the marriage of his son into the family of R. Hiyya,<a id="k62b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; but when the <i>kethubah</i><a id="k62b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; was about to be written the bride passed away.<a id="k62b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Is there, God forbid', said Rabbi, 'any taint [in the proposed union]?'<a id="k62b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; An enquiry was instituted<a id="k62b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; into [the genealogy of the two] families [and it was discovered that] Rabbi descended from Shephatiah<a id="k62b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; the son of Abital<a id="k62b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Hiyya descended from Shimei a brother of David.<a id="k62b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Later<a id="k62b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k62b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; was engaged in preparations for the marriage of his son into the family of R. Jose b. Zimra. It was agreed that he<a id="k62b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; should spend twelve years at the academy.<a id="k62b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; When the girl was led before him<a id="k62b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; he said to them, 'Let it<a id="k62b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; be six years'. When they made her pass before him [a second time] he said,'I would rather marry [her first] and then proceed [to the academy]'. He felt abashed<a id="k62b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; before his father, but the latter said to him.'My son, you<a id="k62b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; have the mind of your creator;<a id="k62b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; for in Scripture it is written first, Thou bringest them in and plantest them<a id="k62b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and later it is written, And let them make Me a sanctuary. that I may dwell among them.<a id="k62b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; [After the marriage] he departed and spent twelve years at the academy. By the time he returned his wife<a id="k62b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; had lost the power of procreation. 'What shall we do?', said Rabbi. 'Should we order him to divorce her, it would be said: This poor soul waited in vain! Were he to marry another woman, it would be said: The latter is his wife and the other his mistress.' He prayed for mercy to be vouchsafed to her, and she recovered. 
</p><p>
	R. Hanania b. Hakinai was about to go away to the academy towards the conclusion of R. Simeon b. Yohai's wedding. 'Wait for me', the latter said to him, 'until I am able to join you'.<a id="k62b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; He, however, did not wait for him but went away alone and spent twelve years at the academy. By the time he returned the streets of the town were altered and he was unable to find the way<a id="k62b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; to his home. Going down to the river bank and sitting down there he heard a girl being addressed thus: 'Daughter of Hakinai, O, daughter of Hakinai, fill up your pitcher and let us go!' 'It is obvious',<a id="k62b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; he thought, 'that the girl is ours', and he followed her. [When they reached the house] his wife was sitting and sifting flour. She<a id="k62b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; lifted up her eyes and seeing him, was so overcome with joy<a id="k62b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; that she fainted.<a id="k62b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; 'O, Lord of the universe', [the husband] prayed to Him, 'this poor soul; is this her reward?'<a id="k62b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; And so he prayed for mercy to be vouchsafed to her and she revived. 
</p><p>
	R. Hama b. Bisa went away [from home and] spent twelve years at the house of study. When he returned he said, 'I will not act as did b. Hakina'.<a id="k62b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; He therefore entered the [local] house of study and sent word to his house. Meanwhile his son, R. Oshaia<a id="k62b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; entered, sat down before him and addressed to him a question on [one of the] subjects of study. [R. Hama]. seeing how well versed he was in his studies, became very depressed. 'Had I been here,'<a id="k62b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; he said, 'l also could have had such a child'.- [When] he entered his house his son came in, whereupon [the father] rose before him, believing that he wished to ask him some [further] legal questions. 'What<a id="k62b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; father', his wife chuckled,<a id="k62b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; 'stands up before a son!' Rami b. Hama applied to him [the following Scriptural text:] And a threefold cord is not quickly broken<a id="k62b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; is a reference to R. Oshaia, son of R. Hania. son of Bisa.<a id="k62b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Akiba was a shepherd of Ben Kalba Sabua.<a id="k62b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; The latter's daughter. seeing how modest and noble [the shepherd] was, said to him, 'Were I to be betrothed to you. would you go away to [study at] an academy?' 'Yes', he replied. She was then secretly betrothed to him and sent him away. When her father heard [what she had done] he drove her from his house and forbade her by a vow to have any benefit from his estate. [R. Akiba] departed. and spent twelve years at the academy. When he returned home he brought with him twelve thousand disciples. [While in his home town] he heard an old man saying to her, 'How long
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k63a_1:" A quotation from Prov. XII, 10."
,k63a_2:" I.e., it is thanks to her suggestion and encouragement that he and, through him, his disciples, were able to acquire their knowledge."
,k63a_3:" Which a competent authority may under certain conditions do."
,k63a_4:" Lit., 'he'."
,k63a_5:" Lit., money'."
,k63a_6:" As her mother had done towards R. Akiba"
,k63a_7:" Lit., 'and this it is that people say'."
,k63a_8:" Lit., 'before'."
,k63a_9:" [H] Lit., 'your harlot'. <i>Var. lec</i>. 'thy mate', 'thy beloved'."
,k63a_10:" [H] This version is obtained by the slight interchange of a h for a z (cf. <i>Supra</i> n. 8)."
,k63a_11:" [H] (rt. [H], 'to separate', sever', 'cease') i.e., did not eat the [H], the 'meal which, so to speak. causes one to cease' the eating of food until the conclusion of the Day of Atonement after nightfall on the following day."
,k63a_12:" The term is explained in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k63a_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k63a_14:" Plural of <i>denar</i>. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k63a_15:" This is regarded as the equivalent of the value of the seven kinds of work (<i>supra</i> 59b) a woman is expected to perform for her husband. (Cf. M.R. Gen. LII)."
,k63a_16:" Half a <i>denar</i>."
,k63a_17:" Then she may be divorced, and cannot claim her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k63a_18:" Corresponding to the three obligations of a husband, prescribed in Ex. XXI, 10."
,k63a_19:" Since a husband, like a wife, might sometimes decide to rebel in this respect."
,k63a_20:" A husband."
,k63a_21:" Surely not. How then, in this respect. is rebellion applicable to him?"
,k63a_22:" I.e., his duty to maintain and support his wife corresponds to her duty to work for him."
,k63a_23:" <i>Infra</i> 77a. presumably at once, while according to Out Mishnah every week AN ADDITION&nbsp;&hellip; IS MADE TO HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>."
,k63a_24:" Of course it is; since he may quite possibly be persuaded to resume his obligations. It is during this period of negotiation that the weekly additions are made to the kethuhah."
,k63a_25:" Lit., '(it is) one to me'."
,k63a_26:" Relating to the rebellion of a wife against her husband."
,k63a_27:" When she declares that she will refuse to marry."
,k63a_28:" <i>Infra</i> 64a. [H], the widow of a man who died childless, who must either be taken in marriage by her deceased husband's brother or submit to <i>halizah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) from him."
,k63a_29:" Cut. edd. insert in parentheses: 'This is correct according to him who said \"(In respect) of work'; but according to him who said (In respect) of conjugal union\", is a menstruant capable of conjugal union? &mdash; He can answer you: One who has bread in his basket is not like one who has none'. Others say, v, <i>infra</i> p. 382. "
}

txt:
<p>
will you lead the life of a living widowhood?' 'If he would listen to me,' she replied. 'he would spend [in study] another twelve years'. Said [R. Akiba]: 'It is then with her consent that I am acting'. and he departed again and spent another twelve years at the academy. When he finally returned he brought with him twenty-four thousand disciples. His wife heard [of his arrival] and went out to meet him, when her neighbours said to her, 'Borrow some respectable clothes and put them on', but she replied: A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.<a id="k63a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; On approaching him she fell upon her face and kissed his feet. His attendants were about to thrust her aside, when [R. Akiba] cried to them, 'Leave her alone, mine and yours are hers'.<a id="k63a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Her father, on hearing that a great man had come to the town, said, 'I shall go to him; perchance he will invalidate my vow',<a id="k63a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; When he came to him [R. Akiba] asked, 'Would you have made your vow if you had known that he was a great man?' '[Had he known]' the other replied. 'even one chapter or even one Single <i>halachah</i> [I would not have made the vow]'. He then said to him, 'I am the man'.<a id="k63a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; The other fell upon his face and kissed his feet and also gave him half of his wealth.<a id="k63a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The daughter of R. Akiba acted in a similar way<a id="k63a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; towards Ben Azzai. This is indeed an illustration of the proverb:<a id="k63a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ewe follows ewe; a daughter's acts are like those of her mother.' 
</p><p>
	R. Joseph the son of Raba [was] sent [by] his father to the academy under<a id="k63a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph. and they arranged for him [to stay there for] six years. Having been there three years and the eve of the Day of Atonement approaching. he said, 'I would go and see my family'. When his father heard [of his premature arrival] he took up a weapon and went out to meet him. 'You have remembered', he said to him, 'your mistress!'<a id="k63a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Another version: He said to him, 'You have remembered your dove!'<a id="k63a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; They got involved in a quarrel and neither the one nor the other ate of the last meal before the fast.<a id="k63a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A WIFE REBELS<a id="k63a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AGAINST HER HUSBAND. HER <I>KETHUBAH</I><a id="k63a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY BE REDUCED BY SEVEN <I>DENARII</I><a id="k63a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; A WEEK.<a id="k63a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: SEVEN TROPAICS.<a id="k63a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR HOW LONG MAY THE REDUCTION CONTINUE TO BE MADE? UNTIL [A SUM] CORRESPONDING TO HER <I>KETHUBAH</I> [HAS ACCUMULATED].<a id="k63a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JOSE SAID: REDUCTIONS MAY BE MADE CONTINUALLY UNTIL [SUCH TIME] WHEN, SHOULD AN INHERITANCE FALL TO HER FROM ELSEWHERE, [HER HUSBAND] WILL BE IN A POSITION TO COLLECT FROM HER THE [FULL AMOUNT DUE]. SIMILARLY, IF A HUSBAND REBELS AGAINST HIS WIFE, AN ADDITION OF THREE<a id="k63a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>DENARII</I> A WEEK IS MADE TO HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>. R. JUDAH SAID: THREE TROPAICS.
<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. REBELS in what [respect]? &mdash; R. Huna replied: [In respect] of conjugal union. R. Jose the son of R. Hanina replied: [In respect] of work. 
</p><p>
	We learned, SIMILARLY, IF A HUSBAND REBELS AGAINST HIS WIFE. Now according to him who said, '[In respect] of conjugal union [this ruling] is quite logical and intelligible;<a id="k63a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but according to him who said, '[In respect] of work', is he<a id="k63a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [it may be objected] under any obligation [at all to work] for her?<a id="k63a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Yes,<a id="k63a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [rebellion being possible] when he declares 'I will neither sustain nor support [my wife]' &mdash; But did not Rab state: If a man says. 'I will neither sustain nor support [my wife]', he must divorce her and give her the <i>kethubah</i>?<a id="k63a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Is it not necessary to consult him [before ordering him to divorce her]?<a id="k63a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: The same<a id="k63a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [law<a id="k63a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable to a woman] betrothed<a id="k63a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; or married, even to a menstruant, even to a sick woman and even to one who was awaiting the decision of the levir.<a id="k63a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Now,<a id="k63a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; according to him who said, '[In respect] of conjugal union' it is quite correct to mention the sick,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k63b_1:" Naturally not. How then could she in this respect be guilty of rebellion?"
,k63b_2:" Lit., 'but'."
,k63b_3:" R. Huna and R. Jose."
,k63b_4:" And the Baraitha cited deals with conjugal union."
,k63b_5:" Of the quotation, 'the same law etc.' cited <i>supra</i> 63a ad fin."
,k63b_6:" Lit., 'they (i.e., their votes) were counted again'."
,k63b_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k63b_8:" At the end of the four weeks."
,k63b_9:" Cf. Tosef. Keth. V., and <i>supra</i> notes 1 and 2."
,k63b_10:" Obviously not; she being forbidden to her husband until the conclusion of the days of her Levitical uncleanness and the seven subsequent 'clean days'."
,k63b_11:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 374. n. 9 The woman's declared rebellion and the man's knowledge that even during her cleanness she will remain forbidden. aggravate the pain of the deprivation and entitle him to immediate redress."
,k63b_12:" A woman who rebelled against her husband"
,k63b_13:" From the very text of the ordinance."
,k63b_14:" Emphasis on Sabbaths' days of test when everybody is free from work and able to attend Synagogue and the houses of study."
,k63b_15:" Lit., 'Infer from this'."
,k63b_16:" A woman who rebelled against her husband."
,k63b_17:" Whose ruling is recorded in the Baraitha just cited (v. <i>supra</i> p. 381. n. 12 and text)."
,k63b_18:" [H] (cf. [H] 'empty'. uncultivated'). 'a hollow, senseless statement'. The addition of the [H] is on the analogy of words like [H] (Levy). Others derive if from [H] 'cave out' (v. Jast.)"
,k63b_19:" Lit., 'what'."
,k63b_20:" Raba who regarded the statement as senseless."
,k63b_21:" Lit., 'like that'"
,k63b_22:" With a view to inducing her to resume her duties, and during the negotiations. contrary to the view of our Masters, only the weekly sum mentioned is deducted from her <i>kethubah</i>. [On this interpretation which follows Rashi, Raba decides in accordance with our Mishnah against our Masters. Tosaf. explains differently R Nahman, In stating that the <i>halachah</i> is with our Masters, meant to exclude thereby the view of Rami B Hama regarding the two warnings. He maintained that the words of our masters had to be taken as they stand, with no mention of any warning before the proclamation. This is however rejected by Raba, who declares, on the authority of R. Shesheth, the <i>halachah</i> to be that a warning is given prior to the proclamation The warning will, In this case, be that she will lose the while of her <i>kethubah</i> should she still prove recalcitrant after the proclamation]."
,k63b_23:" [On Tosaf. interpretation. (Previous note) the meaning is she is not warned before but only after the proclamation, agreeing with R. Nahman b. R. Hisda]."
,k63b_24:" Heb. moredeth, whose divorce is to be delayed and deductions are in the meantime to be made from her <i>Kethubah</i>."
,k63b_25:" Her husband."
,k63b_26:" In this case divorce is delayed in the hope that the weekly reductions of her <i>kethubah</i> and the persuasions used by the court will induce her to change her attitude."
,k63b_27:" [The husband can, if he wishes, divorce her forthwith without giving her <i>kethubah</i>; v. Rashi and Tosaf. s.v. [H].]"
,k63b_28:" V. Supsra note 4."
,k63b_29:" <i>Supra</i> was the seat of the famous school of Rab, in the South of Babylonia."
,k63b_30:" Though the pressure in this case resulted to the birth of a great man."
,k63b_31:" Lit., 'assistance of heaven'"
,k63b_32:" [She said, 'He is repulsive to me' (Rashi) v. <i>infra</i> p. 384, n. 5]."
,k63b_33:" Which she had brought with her when she married, and which was assessed and entered to her <i>Kethubah</i>."
,k63b_34:" Lit., 'sat'."
,k63b_35:" V <i>supra</i> n. 11"
,k63b_36:" As to the forfeiture of worn-out clothes."
,k63b_37:" Lit., 'there are who say'."
,k63b_38:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 383, n. 21. "
}

txt:
<p>
but according to him who said, '[In respect] of work', is a sick woman [it may be objected] fit to do work?<a id="k63b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The fact, however, is that<a id="k63b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [in respect] of conjugal union all<a id="k63b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that [a wife who refuses] is regarded as a rebellious woman.<a id="k63b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; They<a id="k63b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; differ only in respect of work. One Master is of the opinion that [for a refusal] of work [a wife] is not to be regarded as rebellious and the other Master holds the opinion [that for a refusal] of work also [a wife] is regarded as rebellious. 
</p><p>
	[To turn to] the main text,<a id="k63b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If a wife rebels against her husband, her <i>kethubah</i> may be reduced by seven <i>denarii</i> a week. R. Judah said: Seven tropaics. Our Masters, however, took a second vote<a id="k63b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [and ordained] that an announcement regarding her shall be made on four consecutive Sabbaths and that then the court shall send her [the following warning]: 'Be it known to you that even if your <i>kethubah</i> is for a hundred <i>maneh</i><a id="k63b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; you have forfeited it'.<a id="k63b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; The same [law is applicable to a woman] betrothed or married, even to a menstruant, even to a sick woman, and even to one who was awaiting the decision of the levir.<a id="k63b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Hiyya b. Joseph to Samuel: Is a menstruant capable of conjugal union?<a id="k63b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: One who has bread in his basket is not like one who has no bread in his basket<a id="k63b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama stated: The announcement concerning her<a id="k63b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is made only in the Synagogues and the houses of study. Said Raba: This may be proved by a deduction,<a id="k63b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it having been taught,'Four Sabbaths consecutively'.<a id="k63b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; This is decisive.<a id="k63b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hania further stated: [The warning] is sent to her<a id="k63b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; from the court twice, once before the announcement and once after the announcement. 
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. R. Hisda stated in his discourse: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with our Masters.<a id="k63b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba remarked: This is senseless.<a id="k63b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him, 'Wherein lies<a id="k63b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; its senselessness? I, in fact, told it to him, and it was in the name of a great man that I told it to him. And who is it? R. Jose the son of R. Hanina!' Whose view then is he<a id="k63b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; following? &mdash; The first of the undermentioned.<a id="k63b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was stated: Raba said in the name of R. Shesheth, 'The <i>halachah</i> is that she<a id="k63b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is to be consulted',<a id="k63b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Huna b. Judah stated in the name of R. Shesheth, 'The <i>halachah</i> is that she is not to be consulted'.<a id="k63b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is to be understood by 'a rebellious woman'?<a id="k63b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Amemar said: [One] who says. 'I like him<a id="k63b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but wish to torment him'.<a id="k63b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; If she said, however, 'He is repulsive to me', no pressure is to be brought to bear upon her.<a id="k63b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar Zutra ruled: Pressure is to be brought to bear upon her.<a id="k63b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Such a case once occurred, and Mar Zutra exercised pressure upon the woman and [as a result of the reconciliation that ensued] R. Hanina of Sura<a id="k63b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; was born from the re-union. This, however,<a id="k63b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; was not [the right thing to do]. [The successful] result] was due to the help of providence.<a id="k63b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zebid's daughter-in-law rebelled [against her husband]<a id="k63b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and took possession of her silk [cloak].<a id="k63b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Amemar, Mar Zutra and R. Ashi were sitting together<a id="k63b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Gamda sat beside them; and in the course of the session they laid down the law: [If a wife] rebels she forfeits her worn-out<a id="k63b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; clothing that may still be in existence. Said R. Gamda to them, 'Is it because R. Zebid is a great man that you would flatter him? Surely R. Kahana stated that Raba had only raised this question<a id="k63b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; but had not solved it'. Another version:<a id="k63b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; In the course of their session they decided: [If a wife] rebels she does not forfeit her worn-out clothing<a id="k63b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; that may still be in existence. Said R. Gamda to them,
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k64a_1:" And would humbly accept the ruling."
,k64a_2:" Lit., 'neither thus nor thus'."
,k64a_3:" To afford her an opportunity of changing her attitude."
,k64a_4:" [Rashi and Adreth among others restrict this procedure to a rebellion out of repulsion, a case illustrated in their view by the daughter-in-law of R. Zebid (v. <i>Supra</i> p. 383, n. 10). Where the rebellion was out of malice she loses her <i>kethubah</i> and dowry completely after the warning at the end of four weeks. Maim., on the other hand, applies it to rebellion out of malice. In the case of rebellion out of repulsion, she is granted a divorce immediately because 'she is not a captive to her husband that she should be forced to have intercourse with him', and though she forfeits her <i>kethubah</i>, she loses none of her dowry (v. Maim. Yad. Ishuth XIV, 8, and commentaries a.l.). In his view the case of R. Zebid's daughter-in-law was one of rebellion out of malice]."
,k64a_5:" Shomereth yabam, v. Glos,"
,k64a_6:" Of. 'a rebellious 'woman'."
,k64a_7:" <i>Supra</i> 63a, notes."
,k64a_8:" The Baraitha cited (v. suprs n. 8)."
,k64a_9:" And she refused him."
,k64a_10:" Samuel's ruling reported by R. Tobi."
,k64a_11:" And he refused to marry her."
,k64a_12:" And he is awarded a certificate of rebellion against her."
,k64a_13:" She is not entitled to a certificate of rebellion against him, which should enable her to obtain the weekly additions to her <i>Kethubah</i> (v. our Mishnah). The reason is given infa. Thus it has been shown that there is a legal difference between the case where he makes the claim and between the case where she makes the claim."
,k64a_14:" V. p. 384, n. 11."
,k64a_15:" V. p. 384, n. 12."
,k64a_16:" Lit., 'that'."
,k64a_17:" Against her husband."
,k64a_18:" The emendation involving only the slight change of [H] to [H]."
,k64a_19:" A woman is under no obligation to propagate the race (v. Yeb. 65b)."
,k64a_20:" I.e., a son who will provide for her while she is alive and arrange for her burial when she dies."
,k64a_21:" Lit., 'these and these', the statement reported in the name of Samuel as well as the other cited from 63a <i>Supra</i>."
,k64a_22:" And she refused him."
,k64a_23:" The Baraitha cited (v. <i>supra</i> p. 384, n. 8)."
,k64a_24:" Lit., 'here'."
,k64a_25:" Samuel's ruling reported by R. Tobi."
,k64a_26:" V.<i>supra</i> p. 384, n. 13."
,k64a_27:" The reason is given anon in the latter Mishnah cited."
,k64a_28:" By the marital bond which only <i>halizah</i> can sever."
,k64a_29:" When he claims her for levitate marriage."
,k64a_30:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 385. n. 8."
,k64a_31:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 385. n. 10."
,k64a_32:" Lit., 'here'."
,k64a_33:" A woman who refused the levir's claim was, therefore, guity of rebellion, and a certificate against her was issued to the levit."
,k64a_34:" No certificate of rebellion may, therefore, be issued against a woman who refuses such a marriage."
,k64a_35:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k64a_36:" The week consisting of six working days."
,k64a_37:" The husband."
,k64a_38:" Seven tropaics corresponding to all the days of the week including the Sabbath day."
,k64a_39:" The nine <i>ma'ah</i> at the rate of one and a half per day corresponding to six days only (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 9)."
,k64a_40:" I.e., when the woman rebels."
,k64a_41:" When the man rebels against his wife.>"
}

txt:
<p>
'Is it because R. Zebid is a great man<a id="k64a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; that you turn the law against him? Surely R. Kahana stated that Raba had only raised the question but had not solved it'. Now that it has not been stated what the law is,<a id="k64a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [such clothing] is not to be taken away from her if she has already seized them, but if she has not yet seized them they are not to be given to her. We also make her wait twelve months, a [full] year. for her divorce,<a id="k64a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and during these twelve months she receives no maintenance from her husband.<a id="k64a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Tobi b. Kisna stated in the name of Samuel: A certificate of rebellion may be written against a betrothed woman but no such certificate may be written against one who is awaiting the decision of the levir.<a id="k64a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection was raised: The same [law<a id="k64a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is applicable to a woman] betrothed or married, even to a menstruant, even to a sick woman and even to one who was awaiting the decision of the levir!<a id="k64a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is no contradiction. The one<a id="k64a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to the case where the man claimed her;<a id="k64a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the other<a id="k64a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; to that where she claimed him.<a id="k64a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; For R. Tahlifa b. Abimi stated in the name of Samuel: If he claimed her<a id="k64a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; he is attended to;<a id="k64a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; if she claimed him she is not attended to.<a id="k64a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; To what case did you explain the statement of Samuel<a id="k64a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; as referring? To the one where she claimed him?<a id="k64a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [But if so] instead of Saying<a id="k64a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'A certificate of rebellion may be written against a betrothed woman' it should have been said, 'On behalf of a betrothed woman'!<a id="k64a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is no difficulty. Read, 'On behalf of a betrothed woman'.<a id="k64a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Wherein does a woman awaiting the decision of the levir differ [from the man] that no [certificate of rebellion should be issued on her behalf]? Obviously because we tell her, 'Go, you are not commanded [to marry]';<a id="k64a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [but. then.] a betrothed woman also should be told, 'Go, you are not commanded [to marry]'!<a id="k64a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Again should [it be explained to be one] where she comes with the plea Saying. 'I wish to have a staff in my hand and a spade for my burial',<a id="k64a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [this then should] also apply to a woman awaiting the decision of the levir if she comes with such a plea! &mdash; [The proper explanation] then [must be this]: Both statements<a id="k64a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [refer to the case] where the man claimed,<a id="k64a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet there is no difficulty. since one<a id="k64a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; may refer<a id="k64a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; to the performance of <i>halizah</i> and the other<a id="k64a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; to that of the levirate marriage. For R. Pedath stated in the name of R. Johanan: [If the levir] claimed her for the performance of <i>halizah</i> his request is to be attended to,<a id="k64a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he claimed her for the levirate marriage his request is disregarded.<a id="k64a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Why [is he] not [attended to when he claims her] for the levirate marriage? Naturally because we tell him, 'Go and marry another woman'; [but then even when he claims her] for the performance of <i>halizah</i> could we not also tell him, 'Go and marry another woman'? Again should the answer be: [Because] he can plead. 'As she is bound to me<a id="k64a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; no other wife will be given me'. Here also<a id="k64a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [could he not plead] 'As she is bound to me no other wife will be given to me'? &mdash; [The proper explanation] then [is this]: Both statements<a id="k64a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [deal with one] who claimed her for the levirate marriage. but there is really no difficulty. one<a id="k64a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; being<a id="k64a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; in agreement with the earlier Mishnah while the other is<a id="k64a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; in agreement with the latter Mishnah. For we have learned: The commandment of the levirate marriage must take precedence over that of <i>halizah</i>.<a id="k64a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; [This was the case] in earlier days when [levirs] had the intention of observing the commandment &mdash; Now, however, when their intention is not the fulfilment of the commandment, it has been ruled that the commandment of <i>halizah</i> takes precedence over that of the levirate marriage.<a id="k64a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	FOR HOW LONG MAY THE REDUCTION CONTINUE TO BE MADE? etc. What [is meant by] TROPAICS? R. Shesheth replied: [one tropaic is] an istira. And how much is an istira? &mdash; Half a <i>zuz</i>.<a id="k64a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; So it was also taught: R. Judah said: Three tropaics which [amount to] nine <i>ma'ah</i><a id="k64a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [the reduction being at the rate of] one <i>ma'ah</i> and a half per day.<a id="k64a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Joseph asked Of Samuel: In what respect is he<a id="k64a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; different [from his wife] that he is allowed [a reduction] for the Sabbath,<a id="k64a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and in what respect is she different [from him] that she is not allowed [an addition] for the Sabbath?<a id="k64a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In her case,<a id="k64a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; since it is a reduction that is made, [the seventh tropaic the husband gains] does not have the appearance of Sabbath pay. In his case, however,<a id="k64a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; since it is additions that are made,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k64b_1:" I.e., why does the former lose only half a tropaic a day while the latter loses a full tropaic each day?"
,k64b_2:" The man naturally hires the woman; which shows that the male feels the deprivation mote than the female, His compensation. therefore, must be proportionately higher."
,k64b_3:" A husband who does not live with his wife."
,k64b_4:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k64b_5:" In the South of Palestine."
,k64b_6:" This is explained in the Gemara infta."
,k64b_7:" [H], a cake of pressed figs. The latter is sold by weight; the former by measure,"
,k64b_8:" Lit., 'from another place'."
,k64b_9:" [H], a mat of bark or reeds,"
,k64b_10:" The separate edd. of the Mishnah read, 'And if he has no mattress he gives her a rush mat'."
,k64b_11:" I.e., Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles."
,k64b_12:" Which provide more warmth than outworn clothes."
,k64b_13:" Even after her husband had provided her with the new outfit. This is further discussed in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k64b_14:" Smaller expenses."
,k64b_15:" I.e., Friday nights, the prescribed time for marital intercourse."
,k64b_16:" This is explained <i>supra</i> 59a as referring to the surplus."
,k64b_17:" Where he supplies her with the prescribed allowances."
,k64b_18:" The Galilean <i>sela'</i> being equal in weight to half of the Judaean <i>sela'</i>."
,k64b_19:" It is twice as difficult to web the warp than the woof. Hence a larger Output is required of the latter than of the former."
,k64b_20:" [H] lit., 'honoured', respected'."
,k64b_21:" Which prescribed for a wife a minimum of TWO <I>KABS</I>."
,k64b_22:" The loaf of bread required for an 'erub tehumin. (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k64b_23:" I.e., to reduce the prescribed minimum of the 'erub. R. Meir used to consume at a weekday meal less bread than at a Sabbath meal at which the richness of the additional Sabbath dishes tempted him to eat more bread. R. Judah, however, consumed on Sabbath, when several satisfying courses ate served, less bread than he would on weekdays owing to the smaller number of courses."
,k64b_24:" In determining the quantity of bread required for two meals."
,k64b_25:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k64b_26:" V. p. 388, n. 12."
,k64b_27:" Of wheat."
,k64b_28:" If a person remained in such a house (v. Lev. XIV, 33ff) for a length of time during which the quantity of bread mentioned can be consumed his clothes become unclean and require ritual washing (cf. Neg. XIII, 9)."
,k64b_29:" If it consists of Levitically unclean food."
,k64b_30:" Of the person who ate it,"
,k64b_31:" To eat <i>terumah</i> before he performs ritual immersion, v. 'Er. 82b."
,k64b_32:" [This latter passage does not occur in the Mishnah 'Er. but is introduced in the Gemara on 83a as a teaching by a Tanna]."
,k64b_33:" Where a wife is allowed a minimum of TWO <I>KABS</I> of wheat for the week. Since she must have at least two meals a day, the two <i>Kabs</i> should provide fourteen (seven times two) meals, besides an additional one or two (respectively. according to the Rabbis or to R. Hidka, <i>infra</i>) for the Sabbath day."
,k64b_34:" According to R. Johanan b. Beroka a loaf that contains food for two meals (v. <i>supra</i> p. 388. n. 12) is one 'that is purchased for a dupondium when the cost of wheat is at the rate of four <i>se'ah</i> for a <i>sela'</i>, Each <i>sela'</i> = four <i>denarii</i>, each <i>denar</i> = six <i>ma'ahs</i> and each <i>ma'ah</i> = two <i>dupondia</i>. Consequently a <i>sela'</i> = (4 X 6 X 2) forty eight dupondta. a <i>se'ah</i> = six <i>Kabs</i> = twelve half-Kabs. Consequently four se'ahs (4 X 12) forty-eight half-Kabs. For a dupondium, therefore, half a <i>Kab</i> of wheat is obtained; and since this quantity supplies two meals each quarter of a <i>Kab</i> provides one meal. The TWO <I>KABS</I> consequently provide only eight meals."
,k64b_35:" R. Simeon's minimum is 'two thirds of a loaf, three of which ate made of a Kab'. If two thirds represent two meals (v. <i>supra</i> p. 388, n. 12) each third represents one meal. If three loaves are made from one <i>Kab</i>, each <i>Kab</i> represents (3 X 3) nine meals. The TWO <I>KABS</I>, therefore, represent (6 X 9) = eighteen meals. Now since according to our Mishnah a wife must be allowed fourteen meals plus one additional meal or two for the Sabbath (v. <i>supra</i> note 9) neither the view of R. Johanan b. Beroka nor that of R. Simeon can be represented by it."
,k64b_36:" V. 'Er. 82b."
,k64b_37:" Though the shopkeeper buys at the rate of four se'ahs for a <i>sela'</i> = half a <i>kab</i> for a dupondium (v. <i>supra</i> p. 389. n. 10) he sells at a higher price, leaving for himself a profit of one third of the purchase price. For each dupondium, therefore, he sells only two thirds of half a <i>kab</i>. One third of half a <i>Kab</i> or one sixth of a <i>Kab</i> thus provides one meal. Two <i>Kabs</i> therefore, would produce (2 x 6) = twelve meals."
,k64b_38:" In our Mishnah."
,k64b_39:" The shopkeeper's profit which the husband saves by the supply of wheat instead of shop baked loaves."
,k64b_40:" To the presumed number of eight. Four is a third of twelve which is the number of meals two <i>Kabs</i> provide."
,k64b_41:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 389. n. 13 ad fin. As, however, she requires fourteen plus one or plus two meals for the week (v. <i>supra</i> p. 389. n. 9) she is still short of three or four meals."
,k64b_42:" Lit., 'the nights of the Sabbath'. Friday night belongs to the Sabbath, the day always beginning with the sunset of the previous day."
,k64b_43:" <i>Infra</i> 65b."
,k64b_44:" The twelve mentioned (v. <i>supra</i> p. 389. n. 13 ad fin.) plus the one she has on Friday night. She is thus still short of a meal or meals (v. <i>supra</i> p. 389. n. 9) for the Sabbath day."
,k64b_45:" Lit., 'but'."
,k64b_46:" V. 'Er. 82b."
,k64b_47:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 389, n. 13 mutatis mutandis."
,k64b_48:" In our Mishnah."
,k64b_49:" V. <i>supra</i> note 1."
,k64b_50:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 2 mutatis mutandis. The woman thus obtains her full number of meals."
,k64b_51:" Lit., 'a difficulty of R. Hisda against R. Hisda'."
,k64b_52:" Lit., 'that'."
,k64b_53:" For the baking of the bread. In such a case the shopkeeper deducts only a third for his profit."
,k64b_54:" And the shopkeeper sells at a profit equal to half of his purchase price to compensate himself for the cost of the wood."
,k64b_55:" That a half is to be added."
,k64b_56:" Each half <i>Kab</i> producing four, instead of the presumed two meals, the two <i>Kabs</i> would produce (4 X 4 ) sixteen meals."
,k64b_57:" Shab. 117a. As R. Hidka is in the minority, would an anonymous Mishnah which usually represents the <i>halachah</i> agree with the opinion of an individual against that of a majority?"
,k64b_58:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 364. nn. 5-6. This leaves the woman with fifteen meals, twelve for the six weekdays and three for the Sabbath."
,k64b_59:" According to whom the TWO <I>KABS</I> would provide eighteen meals."
,k64b_60:" Who maintain that only three meals are prescribed for the Sabbath."
,k64b_61:" From the eighteen."
,k64b_62:" Cf. <i>supra</i> note 1."
,k64b_63:" Whose view is that for the Sabbath four meals are prescribed."
,k64b_64:" Leaving for the woman four Sabbath meals plus twelve for the week days. "
}

txt:
<p>
[another addition for the seventh day] would have the appearance of Sabbath pay. R. Hiyya b. Joseph [further] asked of Samuel: What [is the reason for the distinction] between a man who rebels [against his wife] and a woman who rebels [against her husband]?<a id="k64b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied. 'Go and learn it from the market of the harlots; who hires whom?'<a id="k64b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Another explanation: [The manifestation of] his passions is external; hers is internal.
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN<a id="k64b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; MAINTAINS HIS WIFE THROUGH A TRUSTEE, HE MUST GIVE HER [EVERY WEEK] NOT LESS THAN TWO <I>KABS</I><a id="k64b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OF WHEAT OR FOUR <I>KABS</I> OF BARLEY. SAID R. JOSE: ONLY R. ISHMAEL WHO LIVED NEAR EDOM<a id="k64b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; GRANTED HER A SUPPLY OF BARLEY.<a id="k64b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST ALSO GIVE HER HALF A KAB OF PULSE AND HALF A LOG<a id="k64b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OF OIL; AND A KAB OF DRIED FIGS OR A <I>MANEH</I><a id="k64b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OF PRESSED FIGS,<a id="k64b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF HE HAS NO [SUCH FRUIT] HE MUST SUPPLY HER WITH A CORRESPONDING QUANTITY OF OTHER<a id="k64b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; FRUIT. HE MUST ALSO PROVIDE HER WITH A BED, A MATTRESS<a id="k64b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AND<a id="k64b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; A RUSH MAT. HE MUST ALSO GIVE HER [ONCE A YEAR] A CAP FOR HER HEAD AND A GIRDLE FOR HER LOINS; SHOES [HE MUST GIVE HER] EACH MAJOR FESTIVAL;<a id="k64b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; AND CLOTHING [OF THE VALUE] OF FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I> EVERY YEAR. SHE IS NOT TO BE GIVEN NEW [CLOTHES]<a id="k64b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE SUMMER OR WORN-OUT CLOTHES IN THE WINTER, BUT MUST BE GIVEN THE CLOTHING [OF THE VALUE] OF FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I> DURING THE WINTER, AND SHE CLOTHES HERSELF WITH THEM WHEN THEY ARE WORN-OUT DURING THE SUMMER; AND THE WORN-OUT CLOTHES REMAIN HER PROPERTY.<a id="k64b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST ALSO GIVE HER [EVERY WEEK] A SILVER <I>MA'AH</I> FOR HER [OTHER] REQUIREMENTS<a id="k64b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SHE IS TO EAT WITH HIM ON THE NIGHT OF EVERY SABBATH.<a id="k64b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE DOES NOT GIVE HER A SILVER <I>MA'AH</I> FOR HER OTHER REQUIREMENTS, HER HANDIWORK BELONGS TO HER.<a id="k64b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WHAT [IS THE QUANTITY OF WORK THAT] SHE MUST DO FOR HIM?<a id="k64b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; THE WEIGHT OF FIVE SELA'S OF WARP IN JUDAEA, WHICH AMOUNTS TO TEN SELA'S IN GALILEE,<a id="k64b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; OR THE WEIGHT OF TEN SELA'S OF WOOF<a id="k64b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; IN JUDAEA, WHICH AMOUNTS TO TWENTY SELA'S IN GALILEE.<a id="k64b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; IF SHE WAS NURSING [HER CHILD] HER HANDIWORK IS REDUCED AND HER MAINTENANCE IS INCREASED. ALL THIS APPLIES TO THE POOREST IN ISRAEL, BUT IN THE CASE OF A MEMBER OF THE BETTER CLASSES<a id="k64b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; ALL IS FIXED ACCORDING TO THE DIGNITY OF HIS POSITION.
<P>
<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Whose [view is represented in] our Mishnah?<a id="k64b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [It seems to be] neither that of R. Johanan b. Beroka nor that of R. Simeon. For we learned: And what must be its<a id="k64b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; size? Food for two meals for each, [the quantity being] the food one eats on weekdays and not On the Sabbath; so R. Meir. R. Judah said: As on the Sabbath and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the lenient ruling.<a id="k64b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan b. Beroka said:<a id="k64b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; A loaf that is purchased for a dupondiom<a id="k64b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [when the cost of wheat is at the rate of] four <i>se'ah</i><a id="k64b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; for a <i>sela'</i>.<a id="k64b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon said:<a id="k64b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Two thirds of a loaf, three of which are made from a <i>Kab</i>.<a id="k64b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Half of this [loaf is the size prescribed] for a leprous house,<a id="k64b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and half of its half<a id="k64b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; renders one's body<a id="k64b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; unfit;<a id="k64b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and half of the half of its half to be susceptible to Levitical uncleanness,<a id="k64b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, whose [view is that expressed in our Mishnah]?<a id="k64b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; If [it be suggested that it is that of] R. Johanan b. Beroka [the prescribed TWO <I>KABS</I> would only] be [sufficient for] eight [meals].<a id="k64b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; and if [the suggestion is that it is that of] R. Simeon [the TWO <I>KABS</I> would] be [sufficient even for] eighteen [meals].<a id="k64b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Our Mishnah may] in fact [represent the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka but, as R. Hisda said elsewhere,<a id="k64b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Deduct a third of them for the [profit of the] shopkeeper',<a id="k64b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; so here<a id="k64b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; also take a third<a id="k64b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; and add to them.<a id="k64b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; But [do not the meals] still amount only to twelve?<a id="k64b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; She eats with him on Friday nights &mdash; 42 This is satisfactory according to him who explained<a id="k64b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [TO EAT In our Mishnah as] actual eating. What, however, can be said according to him who explained 'eating' [to mean] intercourse? Furthermore, [would not her total number of meals still] be only thirteen?<a id="k64b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The proper answer is really this:<a id="k64b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; As R. Hisda said elsewhere,<a id="k64b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Deduct a half for the [profit of the] shopkeeper.<a id="k64b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; so here<a id="k64b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; also take a half<a id="k64b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; and add to them.<a id="k64b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; (Does not a contradiction arise between the two statements of R. Hisda?<a id="k64b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no contradiction. One statement refers<a id="k64b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; to a place where [the sellers of the wheat] supply also wood<a id="k64b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other refers<a id="k64b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; to a place where they do not supply the wood.)<a id="k64b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; If so<a id="k64b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; [the number of meals] is sixteen.<a id="k64b_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; With whose [view then would our Mishnah agree]? With R. Hidka who ruled: A man must eat on the Sabbath four meals?<a id="k64b_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It may be said to represent even the view of the Rabbis, for one meal is to be reserved for guests and occasional visitors.<a id="k64b_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; Now that you have arrived at this position [our Mishnah] may be said to represent even the view of R. Simeon,<a id="k64b_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; for according to the Rabbis<a id="k64b_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; three meals should be deducted<a id="k64b_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; for guests and occasional visitors<a id="k64b_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; and according to R. Hidka<a id="k64b_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; two Only are to be deducted for guests and occasional visitors.<a id="k64b_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	SAID R. JOSE: ONLY&nbsp;&hellip; GRANTED A SUPPLY OF BARLEY etc. Do they eat barley at Edom only and throughout the world none IS eaten? &mdash; It is this that he meant: ONLY R. ISHMAEL WHO LIVED NEAR EDOM GRANTED A SUPPLY OF BARLEY equal to twice the quantity of wheat, because the Idumean barley was of an inferior quality. 
</p><p>
	THE MAN MUST ALSO GIVE HER HALF A <I>KAB</I> OF PULSE. Wine, however, is not mentioned. This provides support for a view of R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar stated:
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k66a_1:" And should belong to her husband. A husband is entitled to his wife's handiwork (v. our Mishnah) in, return for the maintenance he provides for her (v. <i>supra</i> 58b)."
,k66a_2:" Since a wife's work, and even its surplus (v. <i>supra</i> note 6), belongs to her husband, (v. <i>supra</i> note 7) she has no right to dispose of it without his consent. Her vow, therefore, is null and void and no invalidation is required."
,k66a_3:" And of this surplus being her own property, she may well dispose. (For further notes v. <i>supra</i> 59a). How then, Raba argued, could the opinion be entertained that, according to R. Akiba, a wife's find (to which she has a greater claim than to the surplus mentioned) should belong to her husband?"
,k66a_4:" From Palestine to Babylon."
,k66a_5:" V. <i>supra</i> note 6."
,k66a_6:" Lit., 'all the world', sc. R. Akiba and the Rabbis."
,k66a_7:" A find should naturally be regarded as a 'surplus obtained through no undue exertion', about which there is no difference of opinion. How then could it be said that the find of a wife is a point in dispute?"
,k66a_8:" Most finds are not easily obtained, and before one finds anything valuable among the deposits of the sea, for instance, many hours and days might have to he spent."
,k66a_9:" Acting as watchman, for instance, and spinning at the same time."
,k66a_10:" While doing the former (v. <i>supra</i> n. 2) she was also teaching, for instance. a lesson and hatching eggs. Are such performances regarded as ordinary. or undue exertion?"
,k66a_11:" Teku, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k66a_12:" Against R. Judah b. Bathyra (v. our Mishnah)."
,k66a_13:" If a man is to receive compensation for an indignity or injury which he himself has not sustained."
,k66a_14:" Surely not Raba's objection does not, consequently, arise."
,k66a_15:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 6"
,k66a_16:" That he must pay compensation."
,k66a_17:" Cf. B.K. 90a."
,k66a_18:" The body of the offended party."
,k66a_19:" Which proves conclusively that for such an offence, since it was not committed on one's person, no compensation is paid. Why then should a husband receive compensation for his wife's sufferings which he himself has not experienced?"
,k66a_20:" Read [H] (MS.M.). Cur. edd., read [H], and the rendering (rather unsatisfactory) would be as follows: His garment feels no shame but his wife feels the indignity."
,k66a_21:" If indirect insult also entitles one to compensation."
,k66a_22:" certainly not. Why then should the husband receive compensation for indignity to his wife?"
,k66a_23:" The case of indirect insult to the family."
,k66a_24:" Childless; so that his widow should now be married to, or perform <i>halizah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) with his surviving brother (v. Deut. XXV, 5ff) who, in the case of his marriage with the widow, is entitled to the deceased brother's estate (v. Yeb. 40a)."
,k66a_25:" The father-in-law."
,k66a_26:" To the surviving brother who by virtue of his right to the estate of the deceased now claims also the slim his father-in-law had promised him."
,k66a_27:" And the brother must, nevertheless, either submit to <i>halizah</i> from the widow or marry her."
,k66a_28:" On marriage."
,k66a_29:" As her <i>kethubah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)"
,k66a_30:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> He must, in return for the profits he will be able to derive from his trading with her money, add fifty per cent to the amount his wife brought him. A <i>maneh</i> = a hundred <i>denarii</i> (or <i>zuz</i>), and fifteen <i>maneh</i> = fifteen hundred <i>denarii</i>."
,k66a_31:" I.e., if she brought to him, on marriage, goods instead of cash. This kind of dowry is designated Shum (appraisement)."
,k66a_32:" Than the appraised value. This refers to an appraisement made during the wedding festivities when the tendency is to over-assess whatever goods the bride brings to her husband. [According to the T.J. a fifth is allowed for the wear and tear of the goods, since her husband is held responsible for them]."
,k66a_33:" I.e., if the assessment was made prior to the wedding festivities. (Cf. p. 401, n. 12)."
,k66a_34:" He cannot claim twenty-five percent more than the <i>maneh</i> as in the case where the valuation was made during the wedding festivities (v. <i>supra</i> note 1)."
,k66a_35:" l.e., If the valuation was made during the wedding festivities (cf. <i>supra</i> p. 401, n. 12)."
,k66a_36:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> A <i>sela'</i> = four <i>denarii</i>, thirty-one sela's and one <i>denar</i> = (31 X 4 + 1) 125 <i>denarii</i>. A <i>maneh</i>, or a hundred <i>denarii</i>, is a fifth less than one hundred and twenty-five <i>denarii</i>."
,k66a_37:" [This passage is difficult, and the interpretations of it are many and varied, cf. e.g., Tosaf. s.v. [H]. The explanation given follows Rashi. R. Hai Gaon, on the basis of the T.J. (v. <i>supra</i> p. 401, n. 12) explains: If she promised to bring him a dowry (shum) of property worth a <i>maneh</i>, which does not wear out, and is thus always actually worth a <i>maneh</i>, she need not add a fifth to it, v. Shittah Mekubbezeth; v. p. 406, in the case of a bar of gold]. "
}

txt:
<p>
which is her handiwork<a id="k66a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba ruled [that it belongs] to herself, how much more so her find? For we learned: [If a woman said to her husband,] 'Konam, if I do aught for your mouth', he need not invalidate her vow;<a id="k66a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba, however, said: He must invalidate it, since she might do more work than is due to him!<a id="k66a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Reverse then: A wife's find belongs to her husband, but R. Akiba ruled [that it belonged] to herself. But surely, when Rabin came<a id="k66a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated in the name of R. Johanan: In respect of a surplus<a id="k66a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; obtained through no undue exertion all<a id="k66a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that [it belongs to the] husband, and they only differ in respect of a surplus<a id="k66a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; obtained through undue exertion; the first Tanna being of the opinion [that even this belongs] to her husband while R. Akiba maintains [that it belongs] to herself!<a id="k66a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa replied: A find is like a surplus gained through undue exertion,<a id="k66a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [concerning which there is] a difference of opinion between R. Akiba and the Rabbis.
</p><p>
	R. Papa raised the question: What is the law where she performed for him two [kinds of work] simultaneously?<a id="k66a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina raised the question: What is the ruling where she did three or four [kinds of work]<a id="k66a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; simultaneously? &mdash; These must remain undecided.<a id="k66a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[ANY COMPENSATION FOR] INDIGNITY OR BLEMISH [THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INFLICTED UPON] HER. Raba son of R. Hanan demurred:<a id="k66a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Now then,<a id="k66a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; if a man insulted his fellow's mare would he also have to pay him [compensation for the] indignity? But is a horse then susceptible to insult?<a id="k66a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This, however, [is the objection:] If a man spat on his fellow's garment would he<a id="k66a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; also have to pay him [compensation for this] indignity? And should you say that [the ruling] is really so,<a id="k66a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; surely [it can be retorted] we have learned: If a man spat so that the spittle fell upon another person, or uncovered the head of a woman, or removed a cloak from a person he must pay four hundred <i>zuz</i>;<a id="k66a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Papa explained: This has been taught [to apply] only [where it touched] him<a id="k66a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it touched his garment only [the offender] is exempt!<a id="k66a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [An insult] to his garment involves no indignity to him, [but an insult to] his wife does involve an indignity to him.<a id="k66a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Now then,<a id="k66a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man insulted a poor man of a good family where all the members of the family are involved in the indignity, must he also pay [compensation for] indignity to all the members of the family?<a id="k66a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other replied: There<a id="k66a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not their own persons [that are insulted]. Here, however, one's wife is [like] one's own body.
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN UNDERTOOK TO GIVE A FIXED SUM OF MONEY TO HIS SON-IN-LAW AND HIS SON-IN-LAW DIED,<a id="k66a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; HE<a id="k66a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY, THE SAGES RULED, SAY<a id="k66a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I WAS WILLING TO GIVE [THE MENTIONED SUM] TO YOUR BROTHER BUT I AM UNWILLING TO GIVE IT TO YOU'.<a id="k66a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF A WOMAN UNDERTOOK TO BRING HER HUSBAND<a id="k66a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE THOUSAND <I>DENARII</I> HE MUST ASSIGN TO HER<a id="k66a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; A CORRESPONDING SUM OF FIFTEEN <I>MANEH</I>.<a id="k66a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; AS A CORRESPONDING SUM FOR APPRAISED GOODS,<a id="k66a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; HOWEVER, HE ASSIGNS<a id="k66a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE FIFTH LESS.<a id="k66a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF A HUSBAND IS REQUESTED TO ENTER IN HIS WIFE'S <I>KETHUBAH</I>:] 'GOODS ASSESSED AT ONE MANEH', AND THESE ARE IN FACT WORTH A <I>MANEH</I>,<a id="k66a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; HE CAN HAVE [A CLAIM FOR] ONE <I>MANEH</I> ONLY.<a id="k66a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; [OTHERWISE,<a id="k66a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE IS REQUESTED TO ENTER IN THE <I>KETHUBAH</I>:] 'GOODS ASSESSED AT A MANEH', HIS WIFE MUST GIVE HIM [GOODS OF THE ASSESSED VALUE<a id="k66a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; OF] THIRTY-ONE SELA'S AND A <I>DENAR</I>,<a id="k66a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF 'AT FOUR HUNDRED [<I>ZUZ</I>]', SHE MUST GIVE [HIM GOODS VALUED<a id="k66a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; AT] FIVE HUNDRED [ZUZ.]<a id="k66a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; WHATEVER
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k66b_1:" Brother who died."
,k66b_2:" The latter portions of our Mishnah, which contain various instances of deductions of a fifth. (So Rashi. For another interpretation v. Tosaf. s.v. [H])."
,k66b_3:" AS A CORRESPONDING SUM&nbsp;&hellip; HE ASSIGNS ONE FIFTH LESS, which includes all the other instances."
,k66b_4:" ONE THOUSAND <I>DENARII</I> to which the ruling AS A CORRESPONDING SUM&nbsp;&hellip; HE ASSIGNS ONE FIFTH LESS refers."
,k66b_5:" GOODS ASSESSED AT A <I>MANEH</I> &hellip; THIRTY-ONE SELA'S AND A <I>DENAR</I>. Both cases were necessary, since some might assume that with a larger sum over-estimation is more likely while others might assume that over-estimation is more likely to take place in the case of a smaller sum."
,k66b_6:" WHATEVER A BRIDEGROOM ASSIGNS&nbsp;&hellip; ONE FIFTH LESS, referring to a valuation made by him, of goods she had already brought to him before the <i>kethubah</i> had been written."
,k66b_7:" IF AT FOUR HUNDRED [<I>ZUZ</I>] SHE MUST GIVE etc., the last three words implying that the <i>kethubah</i> had already been written and SHE MUST GIVE the required amount of goods which is naturally valued by her (or her relations) to correspond after due deduction with the amount entered in the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k66b_8:" On marriage."
,k66b_9:" Which is worth four <i>denarii</i>."
,k66b_10:" In respect of the corresponding amount to be entered in her <i>kethubah</i>."
,k66b_11:" I.e., fifty percent is added to it as in the case of ready money mentioned in the previous Mishnah. The difference between the two cases will be explained in the Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k66b_12:" Whether daily, weekly or more rarely has not been stated."
,k66b_13:" According to the explanation of the Gemara."
,k66b_14:" Which she brings on marriage."
,k66b_15:" The ruling in the first clause of our Mishnah."
,k66b_16:" V. previous Mishnah. In that case he adds fifty percent, and so he does in this case also. Why then should the same ruling be recorded twice?"
,k66b_17:" A thousand <i>denarii</i> in the previous Mishnah, <i>supra</i> 66a."
,k66b_18:" EVERY <I>SELA'</I> etc. in the Mishnah of ours."
,k66b_19:" [H] (v. Rashi). Jast., 'management, expenses and risks of business': [H], 'a small capital the management of which is easy'."
,k66b_20:" Where the women here in the habit of indulging in the use of perfumes."
,k66b_21:" Ten <i>denarii</i> in respect of each <i>maneh</i> (v. our Mishnah)."
,k66b_22:" By the husband in the <i>kethubah</i>. The latter (v. previous Mishnah) amount to one fifth less than the valuation."
,k66b_23:" V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k66b_24:" <i>Teku</i>, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k66b_25:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 65a (p. 392, n. 6)."
,k66b_26:" To whom, when her husband died, she applied for an order for an allowance out of her husband's estate."
,k66b_27:" In her discontent with the amount."
,k66b_28:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 392, n. 10 and text."
,k66b_29:" Lit., 'where did it go'."
,k66b_30:" I.e., the preservative, the safeguard."
,k66b_31:" [H], i.e., spending it in the exercise of charitable and benevolent deeds. As the members of her family were not charitable they lost their money."
,k66b_32:" [H] (v. <i>supra</i> n. 3) interchange of [H] with [H]."
,k66b_33:" The two were mixed up and when the one was lost the other disappeared with it."
,k66b_34:" The addition made to her <i>kethubah</i> by the bridegroom."
,k66b_35:" Read with MS.M., [H]. Cur. edd., [H], 'happy are you'. "
}

txt:
<p>
A BRIDEGROOM ASSIGNS [TO HIS WIFE IN HER <I>KETHUBAH</I>] HE ASSIGNS AT ONE FIFTH LESS [THAN THE APPRAISED VALUE].
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: There was no need to state that where the first<a id="k66b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; was a scholar and the second an 'am ha-'arez [the father-in-law] can say, 'I WAS WILLING TO GIVE [THE MENTIONED SUM] TO YOUR BROTHER BUT I AM UNWILLING TO GIVE IT TO YOU, but even where the first was 'am ha-'arez and the second a scholar he may also say so.
</p><p>
	IF A WOMAN UNDERTOOK TO BRING TO HER HUSBAND ONE THOUSAND <I>DENARII</I> etc. Are not these<a id="k66b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the same as the case in the first clause?<a id="k66b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He taught [first concerning a] large assessment<a id="k66b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and then he taught also about a smaller assessment;<a id="k66b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he taught about his assessment<a id="k66b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and he also taught about her assessment.<a id="k66b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	M I S H N A H. IF A WOMAN UNDERTOOK TO BRING TO HER HUSBAND<a id="k66b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; READY MONEY, EVERY <I>SELA'</I><a id="k66b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; OF HERS COUNTS<a id="k66b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; AS SIX <I>DENARII</I>.<a id="k66b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; THE BRIDEGROOM MUST UNDERTAKE [TO GIVE HIS WIFE]<a id="k66b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; TEN <I>DENARII</I> FOR HER [PERFUME]<a id="k66b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; BASKET IN RESPECT OF EACH <I>MANEH</I>.<a id="k66b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IN ALL MATTERS THE LOCAL USAGE SHALL BE FOLLOWED.
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. This,<a id="k66b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; surely, is exactly [the same ruling as] 'He must assign to her a corresponding sum of fifteen maneh'.<a id="k66b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He taught first about a major transaction<a id="k66b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and then taught about a minor transaction.<a id="k66b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And [both rulings were] necessary. For had that of the major transaction only been taught it might have been assumed [that it applied to this only] because the profit [it brings in] is large but not to a minor transaction the profit from which is small; [hence it was] necessary [to state the latter]. And had we been informed of that of the minor transaction only it might have been said [to apply to this only] because the expenses and responsibility<a id="k66b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; are small but not to a large transaction where the expenses and responsibility are great; [hence it was] necessary [to state the former].
</p><p>
	THE BRIDEGROOM MUST UNDERTAKE [TO GIVE HIS WIFE] TEN <I>DENARII</I> FOR HER BASKET. What is meant by BASKET?
</p><p>
	r. Ashi replied: The perfume basket. R. Ashi further stated: This ruling applies to Jerusalem<a id="k66b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; only.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi enquired: [Is the prescribed perfume allowance<a id="k66b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; made] in respect of each <i>maneh</i> valued or each <i>maneh</i> for which [obligation has been] accepted?<a id="k66b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [And even]<a id="k66b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; if you could find [some reason] for stating: ['In respect of each] <i>maneh</i> for which [obligation has been] accepted'<a id="k66b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [the question arises: Is the allowance to be made only on] the first day or every day? Should you find [some ground] for deciding: Every day, [the question still remains whether this applies only to the] first week or to every week. Should you find [some authority] for stating: Every week, [it may be asked whether this applies only to the] first month or to every month &mdash; And should you find [some argument] for saying: Every month, [It may still be questioned whether this is applicable only to the] first year or to every year. &mdash; All this remains undecided.<a id="k66b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah related in the name of Rab: It once happened that the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gorion<a id="k66b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; was granted by the Sages<a id="k66b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; an allowance of four hundred gold coins in respect of her perfume basket for that particular day, and she<a id="k66b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; said to them, 'May you grant such allowances for your own daughters!' and they answered after her: Amen.<a id="k66b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that R. Johanan b. Zakkai left Jerusalem riding upon an ass, while his disciples followed him, and he saw a girl picking barley grains in the dung of Arab cattle. As soon as she saw him she wrapped herself with her hair and stood before him. 'Master', she said to him, 'feed me'. 'My daughter', he asked her, 'who are you?' 'I am', she replied, 'the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gorion'. 'My daughter', he said to her, 'what has become<a id="k66b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; of the wealth of your father's house?' 'Master', she answered him, 'is there not a proverb current in Jerusalem: "The salt<a id="k66b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; of money is diminution?"'<a id="k66b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; (Others read: Benevolence).<a id="k66b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And where [the Master asked] is the wealth of your father-in-law's house?' 'The one', she replied, 'came and destroyed the other'.<a id="k66b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Do you remember, Master', she said to him, 'when you signed my <i>kethubah</i>?' 'I remember', he said to his disciples, 'that when I signed the <i>kethubah</i> of this [unfortunate woman], I read therein "A million gold <i>denarii</i> from her father's house" besides [the amount] from her father-in-law's house'.<a id="k66b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon R. Johanan b. Zakkai wept and said: 'How happy are Israel;<a id="k66b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; when they do the will of the Omnipresent no nation nor any language-speaking group has any power over them; but when they do not do the will of the Omnipresent he delivers them into the hands of a low people, and not only in the hands of a low people but into the power of the beasts of a low people'.
</p><p>
	Did not Nakdimon b. Gorion, however, practice charity? Surely it was taught: It was said of Nakdimon b. Gorion that, when he walked from his house to the house of study, woollen clothes were
</P>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k67a_1:" I.e., taking the stuff away with them."
,k67a_2:" Such gifts are not regarded as proper charity."
,k67a_3:" He did not give in accordance with his means."
,k67a_4:" The richer and the greater the man the more is expected of him."
,k67a_5:" The daughter of Nakdimon b. Gorion."
,k67a_6:" Cant. I., 8."
,k67a_7:" [H]."
,k67a_8:" [H], involving the change of [H] for [H]."
,k67a_9:" On marriage."
,k67a_10:" No addition of fifty per cent (as in the case of ready money) and no subtraction of a fifth (as in the case of goods) are made"
,k67a_11:" [H], the term is explained anon."
,k67a_12:" Lit., 'what, not?'"
,k67a_13:" And consequently deteriorate in value. How then could R. johanan maintain that a bar of gold is to be entered in the <i>kethubah</i> for its full value without reducing the fifth prescribed for goods?"
,k67a_14:" Since they can be used as currency. An addition of fifty percent in their case must, therefore, be entered in the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k67a_15:" In the ordinary course of trade, i.e., where they are not taken as currency."
,k67a_16:" And no addition (as in the case of cash) is made. Tosef. Keth. VI."
,k67a_17:" Gold <i>denarii</i> etc."
,k67a_18:" That an addition of fifty percent is to be made (v.<i>supra</i> n. 12)."
,k67a_19:" Lit., 'do not go out'. Why then should they be treated as ready money?"
,k67a_20:" Lit., 'but not'."
,k67a_21:" R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k67a_22:" And a reduction of a fifth is therefore to be made."
,k67a_23:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 406, n. 13. Would then R. Johanan accept the opinion of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel against that of the anonymous first Tanna?"
,k67a_24:" R. Simeon b. Gamaliel does not refer to the first clause."
,k67a_25:" The first Tanna."
,k67a_26:" Of fifty percent, as in the case of regular currency."
,k67a_27:" In the case of bar gold, however, it is generally agreed, as R. Johanan ruled, that it is to be entered into the <i>kethubah</i> at the rate of its actual value."
,k67a_28:" The Baraitha cited."
,k67a_29:" I.e., gold wares."
,k67a_30:" Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 406, n. 13 mutatis mutandis."
,k67a_31:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 406, n. 13."
,k67a_32:" Which wear away in use. Such are indeed to be treated in the same way as silver ware (as has been suggested <i>supra</i>), their price being entered in the <i>kethubah</i> after a deduction of one fifth had been made. R. Johanan. however, who rules the entry of their actual value deals with the case of large bars which do not perceptibly wear away, and whose full value must consequently appear in the <i>kethubah</i>."
,k67a_33:" [H] var. [H] (v. Rashi). Tosaf., 'gold ore'; Golds., 'gold dust'. Cf. p. 407, n. 14 mutatis mutandis."
,k67a_34:" Or Antiochene, the capital of Syria on the Orontes, founded by Seleucus Nicator. [Antioch was a trading centre for spices (v. Krauss, T.A., I, p. 690)]."
,k67a_35:" In respect of the amount to be entered in a <i>kethubah</i>."
,k67a_36:" Fifty percent is to be added to the amount the wife brings in on marriage. These spices were so famous that they could always be sold and thus easily turned into cash."
,k67a_37:" <i>Var. lec</i>., 'Johanan'. (MS.M. and Rosh)."
,k67a_38:" A widow who advances the claim for her <i>kethubah</i> against her deceased husband's estate (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H])."
,k67a_39:" Though these are movable objects, they are, owing to the ready sale they command, deemed to have been pledged for the <i>kethubah</i>. [H], 'settlement', 'endowment' (cf. Jast.). Rashi's interpretation, 'the profit of a third', is rejected by Tosaf. l.c. [Frankel <I>MGWJ</I>, 1861, p. 118 derives the term from the Gk. [G], the outfit which the bride has to bring with her]."
,k67a_40:" V. Rashi; 'sheets' (Jast.)."
,k67a_41:" [A frontier town between Babylon and Arabia (Obermeyer, p. 334)]."
,k67a_42:" Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 6 mutatis mutandis."
,k67a_43:" Not identified."
,k67a_44:" [In the neighbourhood of <i>Supra</i>, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 296]."
,k67a_45:" I.e., the sums of money which they contain (Rashi)."
,k67a_46:" A famous commercial town (v. <i>supra</i> p. 319, n. 9)."
,k67a_47:" Windows or divorced women who seized them for their <i>kethubah</i>."
,k67a_48:" So MS.M. Cur. edd., omit the last three words."
,k67a_49:" As a guarantee for their <i>kethubah</i>."
,k67a_50:" Hence they should not be allowed to seize Mahuza bags."
,k67a_51:" Lit., 'the husband'."
,k67a_52:" By the guardians of the poor."
,k67a_53:" Lit., 'there is in the purse'."
,k67a_54:" V. <i>supra</i> 65b."
,k67a_55:" Lit., 'bag'."
,k67a_56:" Lit., 'bag of charity'."
,k67a_57:" I.e., the Tyrian <i>zuz</i> (v. <i>supra</i> l.c.)."
,k67a_58:" Lit., 'who came to be maintained', Out of the poor funds."
,k67a_59:" If the funds permit."
,k67a_60:" Lit., 'his way is to go about the doors'."
,k67a_61:" Lit., 'to go about'. "
}

txt:
<p>
spread beneath his feet and the poor followed behind him and rolled them up!<a id="k67a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you wish I might reply: He did it for his own glorification &mdash; 2 And if you prefer I might reply: He did not act as he should have done,<a id="k67a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; as people say, 'In accordance with the camel is the burden'.<a id="k67a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught: R. Eleazar the son of R. Zadok said, 'May I [not] behold the consolation [of Zion] if I have not seen her<a id="k67a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; picking barley grains among the horses' hoofs at Acco. [On seeing her plight] I applied to her this Scriptural text: If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed thy kids;<a id="k67a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; read not thy kids<a id="k67a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but thy 'bodies'.<a id="k67a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Shaman b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: If a wife brought to her husband<a id="k67a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [a bar of] gold, it is to be assessed and [entered in her <i>kethubah</i>] according to its actual value.<a id="k67a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: '[Broken pieces of] gold are like vessels'.<a id="k67a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not this imply<a id="k67a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'like silver vessels' which wear out?<a id="k67a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, 'like gold vessels' which do not wear out. If so, [the expression] should have been 'like vessels [made] thereof'! And, furthermore, it was taught: [A bar of] gold is like vessels; gold <i>denarii</i> are like ready money.<a id="k67a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Where the usage is not to change them<a id="k67a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; they are valued and are [to be entered in the <i>kethubah</i>] at the rate of their actual value.<a id="k67a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, to what is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel referring? If it be suggested [that he refers] to the final clause,<a id="k67a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the inference [it may be pointed out would be] that the first Tanna maintains his opinion<a id="k67a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; even when the usage is not to change them, but, surely, [it may be objected] they can not be used as currency!<a id="k67a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; It must consequently be assumed<a id="k67a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [that he<a id="k67a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; referred] to the first clause and that it is this that was meant: [A bar of] gold is like vessels; and what [is meant by] vessels? silver vessels;<a id="k67a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: It is like gold <i>denarii</i> where the usage is not to change them!<a id="k67a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No;<a id="k67a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; he<a id="k67a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; may still refer to the final clause but [it is a case where] with difficulty they can be used as currency; and the principles on which they differ is this: One Master<a id="k67a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; holds the view that since they can be used as currency we allow her the increase<a id="k67a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other Master<a id="k67a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is of the opinion that since they can be used as currency only with difficulty, she is not to have the increase.<a id="k67a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If you prefer I might reply: All the statement<a id="k67a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; is that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but a clause therein is missing, and the proper reading is as follows: [A bar of] gold is like vessels,<a id="k67a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; gold <i>denarii</i> are like ready money. This is the case only where it is the usage to change them,<a id="k67a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but where it is the usage not to change them<a id="k67a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; they are to be valued and entered in the <i>kethubah</i> at the rate of their actual value; so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel for R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the view that where it is the usage not to change them they are to be valued and [entered in the <i>kethubah</i>] at the rate of their actual value. But [the difficulty] nevertheless [remains that the expression] should have been, 'like vessels [made] thereof'! &mdash; This is indeed a difficulty. And if you prefer I might reply: We are here<a id="k67a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; dealing with a case of broken pieces of gold.<a id="k67a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: [We deal here<a id="k67a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; with] gold leaf.<a id="k67a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jannai stated: The spices of Antioch<a id="k67a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; are<a id="k67a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; like ready money.<a id="k67a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Samuel b. Nahmani stated in the name of R. Johanan:<a id="k67a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; A woman<a id="k67a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is entitled to seize Arabian camels in settlement of her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k67a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papi stated: A woman<a id="k67a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; may seize clothes<a id="k67a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; manufactured at Be Mikse<a id="k67a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; for her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k67a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papi further stated: A woman<a id="k67a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; may seize sacks made at Rodya<a id="k67a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; and the ropes of Kamhunya<a id="k67a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; for her <i>kethubah</i>.
</p><p>
	Raba stated: At first I said: A woman<a id="k67a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is entitled to seize money bags<a id="k67a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; of Mahuza<a id="k67a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; for her <i>kethubah</i>.<a id="k67a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; What was [my] reason? Because [women] relied upon them.<a id="k67a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; When I observed, however, that they<a id="k67a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; took them and went out with them into the market<a id="k67a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; and as soon as a plot of land came their way they purchased it with this money I formed the opinion that they rely<a id="k67a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; only upon land.<a id="k67a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>
<P>
<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN GAVE HIS DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANY CONDITIONS, HE MUST GIVE HER NOT LESS THAN FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I>. IF THE [BRIDEGROOM] AGREED TO TAKE HER IN NAKED HE<a id="k67a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY NOT SAY, 'WHEN I HAVE TAKEN HER INTO MY HOUSE I SHALL CLOTHE HER WITH CLOTHES OF MY OWN', BUT HE MUST PROVIDE HER WITH CLOTHING WHILE SHE IS STILL IN HER FATHER'S HOUSE. SIMILARLY IF AN ORPHAN IS GIVEN IN MARRIAGE<a id="k67a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MUST BE GIVEN NOT LESS THAN FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I>. IF [CHARITY] FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE<a id="k67a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE IS TO BE FITTED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIGNITY OF HER POSITION.
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Abaye stated: By FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I> small coins<a id="k67a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; [were meant]. Whence is this statement inferred? &mdash; From the statement in the final clause: IF [CHARITY] FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE SHE IS FITTED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIGNITY OF HER POSITION [concerning which], when it was asked, 'What was meant by FUNDS'.<a id="k67a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; Rehaba explained: Charity funds.<a id="k67a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if we should imagine that by FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I> the actual<a id="k67a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; [coins were meant], how much [it may be asked] ought we to give her even IF CHARITY FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE! Consequently it must be inferred that by FIFTY <I>ZUZ</I> small coins [were meant].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If an orphan boy and an orphan girl applied for maintenance,<a id="k67a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>&nbsp; the girl orphan is to be maintained first and the boy orphan afterwards,<a id="k67a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; because it is not unusual for a man to go begging<a id="k67a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is unusual for a woman to do so.<a id="k67a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; If an orphan boy and an orphan girl
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


