Si quelqu'un consacre (au Temple) l'oeuvre de sa femme, elle travaille et mange, [car ils ont institué qu'il la nourrit en échange de son oeuvre, raison pour laquelle, selon tous, elle travaille et mange.] [S'il consacré] le surplus [de son œuvre, ce qu'elle fait au-delà de ce dont elle a besoin pour sa nourriture, et non pas l'œuvre elle-même], R. Meir dit: Elle est consacrée, [car il soutient que l'on peut consacrer quelque chose qui a " pas encore venu au monde. "] R. Yochanan Hasandler dit: C'est chullin (non consacré). [La halakha n'est pas en accord avec R. Meir, mais avec R. Yochanan Hasandler, qui dit que c'est chullin, car on ne peut pas consacrer quelque chose qui "n'est pas encore venu au monde".]
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
הרי זו עושה ואוכלת – for they degreed support in place of the work of her hands/her labor (i.e., her wages), therefore she works and consumes according to the words of everyone.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Introduction
This mishnah discusses a man who consecrates his wife’s handiwork to the Temple. The question is whether or not such a consecration is valid. The mishnah often uses this type of construct to show the degree of possession a person has over something, the idea being that a person cannot consecrate something that is not his.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
המותר – he dedicated to the Temple the excess of his wife’s wages, what she does more than what is appropriate for her support and did not dedicate to the Temple her wages themselves.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
If a man consecrated his wife’s handiwork, she continues to work and to consume [that which she makes]. When a man declares that anything his wife makes should be consecrated, she may continue to consume that which she produces. This means that she may continue to work and sell that which she makes and use the proceeds to provide for her own maintenance. Since the husband has an obligation to provide for her, and this amount was needed for her provisions, a husband cannot consecrate what she makes.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
ר' מאיר אומר הקדש – for he holds that a person who dedicates something [to the Temple] that did not ever exist, and this is not the Halakha, but rather, the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yohanan ben HaSandlar who stated that it is non-holy/unconsecrated, for a person does not dedicate/sanctify something that never existed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
[Concerning the] surplus: Rabbi Meir says: it is consecrated. Rabbi Yohanan Hasandlar says: it is unconsecrated. However, if she produces more than that which she consumes, there is a question as to whether the husband can consecrate it. According to Rabbi Meir, since she doesn’t need this for her own maintenance, the husband can consecrate it to the Temple. Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar disagrees. He holds that even the surplus cannot be consecrated by the husband. According to the Talmud, this is because a person cannot consecrate things which have not yet been made. A husband cannot declare that the surplus of his wife’s handiwork should be consecrated, because such surplus does not yet exist. Note that our mishnah probably presents a leniency to the husband. One might have thought that after he consecrated his wife’s handiwork, he would have to give the handiwork to the Temple and still provide for her. He cannot get out of his obligation to provide for her because that is mandated by the ketubah. Our mishnah teaches that despite his consecration he can still continue to use her handiwork to provide for her maintenance. Of course if it is not sufficient, he will need to add from his own money to provide for her, as is always the case.
