Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE ENACTMENT OF FEEDING ONE'S WIFE

(a) Rav holds, food was enacted corresponding to earnings; money for other needs, corresponding to extra earnings.

1. Since he is not paying for her other needs, the extra earnings are not his.

(b) Rav Ada holds, food was enacted corresponding to extra earnings; money for other needs, corresponding to earnings.

1. Since he is feeding her, the extra earnings are his.

(c) Question: On what do they argue?
(d) Answer: Rav holds, we enacted what is common in return
for what is common; Rav Ada holds, we enacted what is fixed for what is fixed.
(e) Question (Beraisa): Food was enacted in return for earnings.
(f) Answer: Say, in return for extra earnings.
(g) (Mishnah): If he does not give her money for extra expenses, she keeps her earnings. (This is as Rav Ada)!

1. (This is no proof) - say, she keeps her extra earnings.
2. Question: But a Beraisa clarifies this Mishnah, 'How much must she work? She must spin 5 Sela'im (according to the weights used in Yehudah) of warp-thread.'
3. Answer: The Beraisa teaches how much she must work, so we will know what is considered extra; the standard is 5 Sela'im of Yehudah, which are as 10 of Galil.

(a) (Shmuel): The law is as R. Yochanan ha'Sandler.
(b) Question: Did Shmuel really say that?

1. (Mishnah): (A woman vows) 'What my hands produce is Konam (forbidden as a sacrifice) to your mouth' - the husband need not annul the vow (it is null anyway);
2. R. Akiva says, he should annul it, perhaps she will earn extra;
3. R. Yochanan Ben Nuri says, he should annul it, perhaps he will divorce her, and will not be allowed to remarry her.

i. (Shmuel): The law is as R. Yochanan Ben Nuri. (He says the vow takes effect on what is not yet in the world - unlike R. Yochanan ha'Sandler!)

(c) Answer #1: Shmuel only said the law is as R. Yochanan Ben Nuri (that the vow should be annulled because it forbids) extra earnings.
(d) Objection: If so, Shmuel should say, the law is as R. Yochanan Ben Nuri regarding extra earnings!

1. Or, he should say, the law is unlike the 1st Tana!
2. Or, he should say, the law is as R. Akiva!

(e) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): One cannot ask a question from Konamos to Hekdesh - Konamos are different!

1. Since a person can forbid his friend's property on himself via Konam, he can also forbid something which is not yet in the world.

(f) Objection (Abaye): I agree, a person can forbid his friend's property on himself via Konam, since he can forbid his property on his friend;

1. Should we say, a person can forbid something not in the world on his friend - a person cannot forbid his friend's property on his friend!

(g) Answer #3 (Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The case is, she said 'My hands are sanctified to their Maker' - her hands are in the world.
(h) Question: When she says this, do they become sanctified? They are obligated to work for the husband!
(i) Answer: She said, 'when I will be divorced'.
(j) Question: Do we ever find, something does not become sanctified now, and it is sanctified later?
(k) Answer #1 (R. Ilai): Yes! One who says, this field that I sell to you should be Hekdesh when I buy it back!

1. Objection (R. Yirmeyah): The comparison is faulty! There, he can sanctify it now (before selling it); the wife cannot!
2. (R. Yirmeyah): Our case resembles one who says, 'This field that I *sold* to you should be Hekdesh when I buy it back' - it does not become Hekdesh!
3. Objection (Rav Papa): The comparison is faulty! There, the buyer owns the field itself and its produce; in our case, the wife owns her hands!

(l) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We find such a case - one who says 'This field I mortgaged to you (gave as collateral for a loan, to eat its fruit until the loan is repaid) should be Hekdesh when I redeem it' - the field becomes Hekdesh!

1. Objection (Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi): The comparison is faulty! There, he can redeem the field; the wife cannot divorce herself!

(m) Answer #3 (Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi): We find such a case - one who says 'This field I mortgaged to you for 10 years should be Hekdesh when I redeem it' - the field becomes Hekdesh!

1. Objection (Rav Ashi): The comparison is faulty! There, he can redeem the field after 10 years; a wife can never divorce herself!

(n) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): One cannot ask a question from Konamos - they are different, they are as something sanctified for Temple service, as Rava taught.

1. (Rava): Sanctifying, the prohibition of Chametz, and freeing a slave uproot liens.

(o) Question: If so, her earnings should become forbidden immediately!
(p) Answer: Chachamim strengthened the lien of a husband, so it does not become Hekdesh now.

(a) (Mishnah): A wife must grind, bake, launder, cook, nurse her son, spread his bedsheet, and spin wool;

1. If she brought a slave into the marriage, she is exempted from grinding, baking and laundering;
2. If she brought 2 slaves, she is also exempted from cooking and nursing;
3. If she brought 3 slaves, she is also exempted from making his bed and spinning wool;
4. If she brought 4 slaves, she sits in a comfortable chair; R. Eliezer says, even if she brings 100 slaves, he forces her to work, since idleness breeds lewdness; R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, even one who forbids his wife from working through a vow, must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah, for idleness leads to insanity.

(b) (Gemara) Question: Does the Mishnah really mean that she grinds (the water turns the grinder)!
(c) Answer #1: Rather, she makes the preparations for grinding.
(d) Answer #2: She grinds using a hand-mill.
(e) Our Mishnah is unlike R. Chiya.

1. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): A wife is only for beauty, and for having and raising children.
2. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): A wife is only for adornment.
3. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): One who wants to make his wife radiant should clothe her in linen; one who wants to whiten his daughter should feed her chicks and give her milk to drink before she becomes a Na'arah.

(f) (Mishnah): She must nurse her son ...
(g) Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai.

1. (Beraisa): A wife that vowed not to nurse her son - Beis Shamai says, she may not nurse him; Beis Hillel says, her husband can force her to nurse him;
2. If he divorces her, he cannot force her; if the baby recognizes his mother, he pays her wages (for nursing) and she must nurse him, because of the danger.

(h) Rejection: The Mishnah can even be as Beis Shamai - the case is, she vowed and he confirmed the vow.

1. Beis Shamai holds, he put the finger between her teeth (he is responsible for the vow - therefore, it can uproot her obligation to him); Beis Hillel says, she put the finger between her teeth (so it cannot uproot her obligation to him).

(i) Question: If so, they should argue more directly, if he must pay a Kesuvah (when he confirmed a vow which obligates him to divorce her).
(j) Answer: True! Rather, the Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai.
(k) (Mishnah): If the baby recognizes the mother ...