## Ketubot Daf 59a

###### Ketubot 59a:1
[Ketubot 59a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:1)

מְזוֹנוֹת תַּחַת מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּמָעָה כֶּסֶף תַּחַת מוֹתָר, וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא קָא יָהֵיב לַהּ מָעָה כֶּסֶף — מוֹתָר דִּידַהּ הָוֵי. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה סָבַר: תִּקְּנוּ מְזוֹנוֹת תַּחַת מוֹתָר, וּמָעָה כֶּסֶף תַּחַת מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וְכֵיוָן דְּקָא יָהֵיב לַהּ מְזוֹנֵי, מוֹתָר דִּידֵיהּ הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**sustenance in exchange for her earnings, and** the **silver *ma’a*** coin that he must give her **in exchange for the surplus** that she continues to make beyond her quota. **And since he does not give her a silver *ma’a* the surplus is hers,** unless some of it is left after her death, in which case the husband inherits it. **Rav Adda bar Ahava maintains** that **they established sustenance in exchange for the surplus, and a silver *ma’a* in exchange for her earnings. And since he provides her with sustenance, the surplus is his,** and therefore the sanctity takes effect on it immediately when she produces the surplus.


###### Ketubot 59a:2
[Ketubot 59a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:2)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: מִידֵּי דִּשְׁכִיחַ מִמִּידֵּי דִּשְׁכִיחַ. וּמָר סָבַר: מִידֵּי דְּקִייץ מִמִּידֵּי דְּקִייץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara explains: One **Sage,** i.e., Rav and Shmuel, **holds that** they established **something common** in exchange **for something common.** Consequently, they established sustenance, which is common, in exchange for earnings, which are also common. **And** one **Sage,** Rav Adda bar Ahava, **holds that** they established **something** with **a fixed amount** in exchange **for something** with a **fixed amount.** Consequently, since a silver *ma’a* is a fixed amount and the quota of a woman’s earnings is also fixed, they established one in exchange for the other.


###### Ketubot 59a:3
[Ketubot 59a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: תִּקְּנוּ מְזוֹנוֹת תַּחַת מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ! אֵימָא: תַּחַת מוֹתַר מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav Adda bar Ahava’s opinion from a *baraita*: **They established sustenance in exchange for her earnings.** Apparently, sustenance is not in exchange for the surplus. The Gemara answers by emending the text of the *baraita*: **Say:** They established sustenance **in exchange for the surplus of her earnings.**


###### Ketubot 59a:4
[Ketubot 59a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אִם אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לָהּ מָעָה כֶּסֶף לִצְרָכֶיהָ — מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהּ. אֵימָא: מוֹתַר מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהּ. וְהָא עֲלַהּ קָתָנֵי: מָה הִיא עוֹשָׂה לוֹ — מִשְׁקַל חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שְׁתִי בִּיהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts another proof from a mishna (64b): **Come** and **hear: If he does not give her a silver *ma’a* for her needs, her earnings** belong **to her.** This indicates that the earnings were established in exchange for the silver *ma’a*, as Rav Adda bar Ahava contended. The Gemara rejects this by emending the text of the mishna: **Say: The surplus of her earnings** belongs **to her.** The Gemara challenges the emendation: **But it is taught** in the continuation **of this** mishna: **What** is the fixed amount that **she** must **earn for him?** She must spin the **weight** of **five *sela*** of threads of the **warp in Judea,** which is the equivalent of ten *sela* according to the measurements of the Galilee. This clause implies that the mishna is not discussing the surplus but rather the quota of her required earnings.


###### Ketubot 59a:5
[Ketubot 59a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:5)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ כַּמָּה הָוֵי, דְּלִידַּע מוֹתָר דִּידַהּ כַּמָּה — מִשְׁקַל חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שְׁתִי בִּיהוּדָה, שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים בַּגָּלִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This is what it is saying: How much is** the required amount of **her earnings,** so **that** one **can know how much** of what she produces constitutes **the surplus,** and to this the mishna replied: **The weight** of **five *sela*** of threads of the **warp in Judea, which is** the equivalent of **ten *sela*** according to the measurements of **the Galilee.**


###### Ketubot 59a:6
[Ketubot 59a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:6)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan the Cobbler.** A husband may not consecrate his wife’s earnings at all, as they have not yet come into being.


###### Ketubot 59a:7
[Ketubot 59a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:7)

וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָתְנַן: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹשָׂה לְפִיךָ״ — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲדִיף עָלָיו יָתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמַר: יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא יְגָרְשֶׁנָּה וּתְהֵא אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Shmuel** actually **say this?** But **didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 85a): If a woman said: **What I make to feed you,** i.e., what I earn for you, **is** forbidden **like an offering** [***konam***], the husband **does not need to nullify** this vow. She has a prior obligation to work for him, and therefore the *konam* cannot take effect on something that does not belong to her. **Rabbi Akiva says:** Even so, the husband **should nullify** the vow, **lest she produce more** earnings **than is appropriate for him,** and the *konam* will then take effect on the surplus amount. **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: He should nullify** the vow for a different reason, **lest he divorce her.** Since she rendered her earnings forbidden to him, **she will be prohibited from remarrying** him after her divorce, as it would then be impossible for him to avoid benefiting from his wife’s earnings.


###### Ketubot 59a:8
[Ketubot 59a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:8)

וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. כִּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, לְהַעְדָּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,** who maintains that the wife can render her future earnings prohibited to her husband before these earnings have come into being, with the prohibition to go into effect after she divorces. This would imply that Shmuel holds that it is possible to consecrate an object that has not yet come into the world, contrary to what Rabbi Yoḥanan the Cobbler said. The Gemara answers: **When Shmuel said** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,** he was referring only to **the surplus.**


###### Ketubot 59a:9
[Ketubot 59a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:9)

וְלֵימָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְהַעְדָּפָה! אִי נָמֵי: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא! אִי נָמֵי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **let him say** explicitly that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri with regard to the surplus,** or **alternatively,** he should say that the ***halakha* is not in accordance with the first *tanna*,** or **alternatively,** he should simply say: The ***halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,** who is concerned about the surplus amount.


###### Ketubot 59a:10
[Ketubot 59a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:10)

אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: קֻוֽנָּמוֹת קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי קֻוֽנָּמוֹת, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאָדָם אוֹסֵר פֵּירוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו, אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** explain it differently, as **Rav Yosef said: Did you speak** about ***konamot*** to prove your contention that one can consecrate objects that have not yet come into the world? ***Konamot* are different,** as they have a special status, **since a person can prohibit another’s produce to himself.** If one says to another: Your produce is *konam* to me, it is prohibited for him to eat that produce, although it does not belong to him and the prohibition will apply to it only when it reaches his domain. This indicates that a *konam* has unique power that enables **a person** to **consecrate an object that has not** yet **come into the world,** which according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the Cobbler is an exception to the principle. Consequently, Shmuel’s ruling in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri with regard to *konamot* is not relevant to his opinion on the issue of a wife’s earnings.


###### Ketubot 59a:11
[Ketubot 59a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אָדָם אוֹסֵר פֵּירוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו — שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם אוֹסֵר פֵּירוֹתָיו עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. יֶאֱסֹר דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר פֵּירוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל חֲבֵירוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him:** This analogy cannot serve as a proof. **Granted, a person can prohibit another’s produce to himself,** but this is possible **because a person can prohibit his own produce to another.** In both cases there is at least one aspect of the prohibition that is in his domain, either when he forbids another’s produce to himself, or when he forbids produce in his own possession to others. However, one cannot **prohibit an object that has not** yet **come into the world to another, since a person cannot prohibit another’s produce to another.** Just as he cannot make a *konam* and render prohibited to another person produce that is not in his possession, he also cannot render prohibited to another person produce that has not yet come into the world. If so, how can a woman render her earnings prohibited to her husband by a *konam* if those earnings have not yet come into the world?


###### Ketubot 59a:12
[Ketubot 59a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בְּאוֹמֶרֶת ״יִקְדְּשׁוּ יָדַי לְעוֹשֵׂיהֶם״, דְּיָדַיִם אִיתַנְהוּ בָּעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara rejects that explanation and instead explains as **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** The mishna does not refer to a case where she said: My earnings are *konam* to you, but rather to one **when she says: My hands are consecrated to the One Who made them,** and this *konam* can take effect **because the hands** do **exist in the world.**


###### Ketubot 59a:13
[Ketubot 59a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:13)

וְכִי קָאָמְרָה הָכִי מִי מַקְדְּשָׁה? הָא מְשַׁעְבְּדָא לֵיהּ! דְּאָמְרָה לְכִי מִיגָּרְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **When she says this** in such terms **does it become consecrated? She is subjugated to** her husband with regard to her earnings, so how can she consecrate that which is not hers? The Gemara answers: **She says** that the consecration will take effect **when she will get divorced** from her husband.


###### Ketubot 59a:14
[Ketubot 59a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:14)

וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִילּוּ הַשְׁתָּא לָא קַדִּישׁ וּלְקַמֵּיהּ קַדִּישׁ? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: אַלְּמָה לָא? אִילּוּ הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹכֵר לְךָ לִכְשֶׁאֶקָּחֶנָּה מִמְּךָ תִּיקְדַּשׁ״, מִי לָא קָדְשָׁה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is there anything** one would do **that if** done **at present,** the **consecration** could **not** take effect **and in the future** the **consecration** could take effect? **Rabbi Elai said: Why not? If one told another: This field that I am selling to you will be consecrated when I buy it** back **from you, doesn’t** that field **become consecrated** when he buys it back? It appears that one can cause an item to become consecrated in the future although at present he cannot consecrate it.


###### Ketubot 59a:15
[Ketubot 59a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:15)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם, בְּיָדוֹ לְהַקְדִּישָׁהּ. הָכָא, אֵין בְּיָדָהּ לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת עַצְמָהּ. הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁמָּכַרְתִּי לְךָ, לִכְשֶׁאֶקָּחֶנָּה מִמְּךָ — תִּיקְדַּשׁ״, דְּלָא קָדְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this: Are** these cases **comparable? There,** with regard to a field, since the field that he is selling belongs to him at the time of the sale, **it is in his power to consecrate it** now. Therefore, he can effect sanctity on it at a later point as well. But **here, it is not in her power to divorce herself.** Consequently, the analogy is invalid. Rather, **this is comparable only to** a different case, when **one says to another: This field that I** already **sold to you will be consecrated when I buy it** back **from you.** In that case the field **is not consecrated,** as, when he said this the field was not in his possession, and one cannot consecrate an object that has not yet come into the world.


###### Ketubot 59a:16
[Ketubot 59a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/59a:16)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם, גּוּפָא וּפֵירוֹת בִּידָא דְלוֹקֵחַ. הָכָא, גּוּפַהּ בִּידַהּ הוּא. הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa objects to this: Is** Rav Yirmeya’s analogy **comparable? There,** the field **itself and** its **produce** are **in the possession of the buyer,** and therefore the seller cannot consecrate them. **Here, her body is in her possession,** as she owns her hands. Rather, **this is comparable only to** a case where **one says to another:**