תלמוד על כתובות 7:31

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh¹⁰Since he is the owner of the courtyard, without the evidence of continued processing the courtyard would induce ṭevel and the duty of tithes.. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him¹¹It is forbidden to pay one’s debts with untithed produce. The marriage contract explicitly notes that the husband will “work for, honor, feed, and provide for” his bride “in the manner of Jewish husbands.” The language seems to imply that this is a contract following rabbinic guidelines; this is the position of Nachmanides and R. Asher ben Ieḥiel (Rosh Ketubot Chap. 13, Sec. 6.) Maimonides holds that nevertheless the obligation is biblical, Hilkhot Išut 12:2.? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food¹²Tosephta Ševiït 5:22, quoted also in Yerushalmi Ketubot 7:1 (fol. 31b), 13:1 (fol. 34d). The husband left for an overseas trip, stayed longer than anticipated, and now the wife needs money to survive. She may sell some of the husband’s property or take a loan under the supervision of the court. She may not sell Sabbatical produce for her needs since Sabbatical produce may not be used to pay debts of any kind. But if the husband is present, she may eat of his Sabbatical fruits; since his obligation to feed his wife is only rabbinical, this is not considered paying his debts with Sabbatical produce. Similarly here, her eating from figs destined for muqẓeh is not considered paying a debt with untithed fruit. for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah¹³The smallest bronze coin, about 2 grams in weight. Amounts less than a peruṭah are not recognized in law. The worker cannot eat according to biblical law; what he gets is a gift and the rabbis agreed earlier that a gift has the status of a sale for the obligation of tithes. Even though the obligation of the husband to feed his wife might not be biblical, it is the consequence of a contract volontarily entered upon and it should not be possible to discharge the obligation with untithed produce (except when the wife’s income from her work is more than what she would get from her husband, in which case she is free to stipulate that she will keep her earnings for herself and not be fed by him.)? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling¹⁴Since she has the biblical right to live in her husband’s house and courtyard, if the courtyard creates ṭevel for him it should do the same for her; this seems to contradict Rav’s position.? Following what we stated: “If men participate¹⁵In order to turn the dead-end street where they live into a space in which one may carry on the Sabbath, cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 193. with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid¹⁶Tosephta Eruvin 6:4. The wife’s right to the dwelling is derivative; there is no reason that the courtyard should create ṭevel for her. This argument is peculiar to the Yerushalmi; in the Babli (Eruvin 80a) the Tosephta is restricted to the case where the husband disapproved of participation beforehand.”.