Talmud su Ketubbot 7:12

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.”.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this about the follow-holiday²⁷Using the root רדף not in the biblical sense “to pursue” but the related meaning “to follow closely”, Arabic ردف. The definition of follow-holiday is from Ketubot7:5 (Notes 43–45), Babli Ketubot 71b.. What is the follow-holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is the first holiday when her father follows her to her husband’s house. If she did not go for the first holiday, does the second holiday become the follow-holiday²⁸So if that should be Passover she has a choice whether to join her father or her husband for the Pesaḥ.? She always has a follow-holiday. Does a widow have a follow-holiday? Let us hear from the following: “If she went to her father’s house for the first holiday.” Either this means that she always has a follow-holiday or it means that a widow has a follow-holiday²⁹To make sense of the duplication in the Mishnah since following R. Joḥanan also the first sentence of the Mishnah refers to a newly-wed who still has no child.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that she has children but no husband. Normally a woman gives instructions saying, I want to be with my children³⁰Once she has children, the question of where she celebrates the Pesaḥ is resolved; she no longer has to be asked where she wants to be..

It was stated⁵⁰Different texts are in Tosephta 1:4, Babli 21b.: About his neighbor he may change his mind. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind⁵¹There are situations where one of the co-owners of the courtyard has lost his veto power even if the troublesome store was new. The question to be discussed is, what means “accepted”? If a new owner does not immediately complain, this certainly does not make him lose his right.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even after he accepted it, he can change his mind, for he can tell him, they come and go here, they are looking for you and do not find you, and they increase traffic here⁵²For him the veto power over a new enterprise in the courtyard remains valid if he can prove actual impairment of his quality of life by the new store.. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He let him live in his house⁵³Nobody can complain about his own tenant.. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rav Huna⁵⁴This should be: “the other”, אוחרי. said, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He opened a store for him⁵⁵He holds that an owner can annul a lease if the tenant causes him problems. But if he modified his building for the new tenant’s business, he cannot complain.. Once he accepted it he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Meïr, as we have stated there⁵⁶Mishnah Ketubot 7:11, Note 163. A woman was informed of bodily defects of her prospective husband before her marriage. The majority hold that once married, she cannot ask the court to force a divorce because of the husband’s defects. R. Meїr disagrees as explained in the text.: “For all of these says Rebbi Meїr that, even if he contracted with her, she can say ‘I thought that I could stand it, now I cannot.’ ”

There⁷⁶Mishnah 5:3: If an Elder annuls the vow for which animals already had been reserved, the animals are profane. Why are the wife’s animals not profane if her husband dissolves her vow?, you find it possible to say, “it should go grazing”, and here, you say so? There, the Elder eliminates the vow from the start; here, he⁷⁷The husband. In the Babli, 19a, the question of the reach of the husband’s action remains unanswered. Only for the Elder, the Babli agrees, Ketubot 74b. eliminates only from that moment onwards.

MISHNAH: If somebody divorces his wife because of bad reputation¹⁷³She has the reputation of an adulteress but he has no proof., he cannot take her back¹⁷⁴As explained in the Halakhah, to protect the wife’s children in a subsequent marriage. This is in the public interest.; because of a vow¹⁷⁵Because of a vow she made., he cannot take her back¹⁷⁴As explained in the Halakhah, to protect the wife’s children in a subsequent marriage. This is in the public interest.. Rebbi Jehudah says, for any vow known in public¹⁷⁶Which according to R. Jehudah cannot be dissolved; cf. Nedarim 5:4, Note 56., he cannot take her back; not known in public, he can take her back. Rebbi Meїr says, for any vow which needs investigation by a Sage, he cannot take her back; if it does not need investigation by a Sage, he can take her back¹⁷⁷A vow made in error which never was binding.. Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other¹⁷⁸This is explained in the Halakhah.. Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah said, it happened in Sidon that one said to his wife, a qonam¹⁷⁹He forbade certain things on himself if he did not fulfill the conditions he imposed on himself; cf. Tractate Nedarim, Introduction. if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her, and the Sages permitted him to take her back¹⁸⁰This is unproblematic since he fulfilled his vow. The case is quoted only to show that the prohibition to take her back is due only to a vow of hers, not his., for the public good.

It was stated¹⁸⁴Tosephta 3:5.: “Why did they say that he who divorces his wife because of a vow cannot take her back? For if he divorced his wife because of a vow, when she went, married another, and bore him children, after some time it turned out that the vow was void and he said, if I had known that the vow was void, even if somebody had offered me a hundred minas for my wife I would not have divorced her, then the bill of divorce would be invalidated and her child a bastard. But since he knows that if he divorces her, she will be forbidden to return to him, from the start he gives her a perfect bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage¹⁸⁵The only invalid vows are those which do not need an Elder to be nullified. Therefore, the husband could have annulled the vow (Nedarim Chapters 10–11).! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, you can see that he was looking for a pretext to divorce her since it must have been a vow which was not public knowledge¹⁸⁶Also for a public vow, the situation described in the Tosephta cannot arise.! ¹⁸⁷This is quoted in Ketubot 7:9, explained there in Notes 117,118.“Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade one because of the other.” The law should be that he can take her back even if it was a vow which needs investigation by a Sage, for the Elder uproots the vow. Why did they forbid a vow which needs investigation by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not need investigation by a Sage¹⁸⁸In which case the situation described in the Tosephta could arise..