## Ketubot Daf 59b

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

״שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכַּנְתִּי לְךָ, לִכְשֶׁאֶפְדֶּנָּה מִמְּךָ — תִּיקְדַּשׁ״, דְּקָדְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This field that I mortgaged to you** and from whose produce you are benefiting **will be consecrated when I redeem it from you.** The *halakha* is **that it is consecrated,** since the field itself was not transferred to another’s ownership.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם, בְּיָדוֹ לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. הָכָא, אֵין בְּיָדָהּ לְגָרֵשׁ עַצְמָהּ! הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁמִּשְׁכַּנְתִּי לְךָ לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, לִכְשֶׁאֶפְדֶּנָּה מִמְּךָ — תִּיקְדַּשׁ״, דְּקָדְשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: Is it comparable? There,** in the case where he mortgaged the field, **it is in his power to redeem it,** whereas **here,** with regard to a woman who renders her earnings prohibited to her husband, **it is not in her power to divorce herself** from her husband. **This is only comparable to one who says to another: This field that I have mortgaged to you for ten years will be consecrated when I redeem it from you.** The *halakha* is **that it is consecrated.** Similarly, in this case, despite the fact that her earnings belong to her husband, when she will be divorced they will revert to her, and since her hands have always belonged to her, she can consecrate her earnings.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם, לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים מִיהָא בְּיָדוֹ לִפְדּוֹתָהּ. הָכָא, אֵין בְּיָדָהּ לְגָרֵשׁ עַצְמָהּ לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi objects to this: Is it comparable? There,** after **ten years in any case it will be in his power to redeem it,** whereas **here,** with regard to a woman, **it is never in her power to divorce herself** from her husband. Consequently, there is no way for her to consecrate her future earnings.


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

אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קוּנָּמוֹת קָא אָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי קוּנָּמוֹת, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף נִינְהוּ, וְכִדְרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הֶקְדֵּשׁ, חָמֵץ וְשִׁחְרוּר — מַפְקִיעִין מִידֵי שִׁיעְבּוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the contradiction between the two rulings of Shmuel must be resolved in a different manner. **Rav Ashi said: Did you speak** about ***konamot*? *Konamot* are different,** since **they are** a type of **inherent sanctity,** and therefore the *konam* can take effect on an item that is subjugated to another person, **in accordance with** the *halakha* articulated by **Rava. As Rava said: Consecration,** the prohibition of **leavened bread** on Passover, and the **liberation** of a slave **can** all **abrogate a lien on property.** If property was mortgaged to another person, and then the owner consecrated it, or if leavened bread was mortgaged and Passover arrived and it became prohibited to benefit from it, or if a slave was mortgaged and then liberated by his owner, the lien is abrogated. Since *konam* is a form of consecration, it can take effect on an item even when it is subjugated to another when the owner prohibited it, similar to the case of mortgaged property.


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

וְנִקְדְּשׁוּ מֵהַשְׁתָּא? אַלְּמוּהָ רַבָּנַן לְשִׁיעְבּוּדֵיהּ דְּבַעַל, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּיקְדַּשׁ מֵהַשְׁתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If it is so, that a *konam* can remove the lien on property, **let her earnings become consecrated from now,** even before her husband divorces her. The Gemara answers: **The Sages reinforced the husband’s lien in order that it not become consecrated now.** However, since in general a *konam* can take effect on mortgaged items, it can take effect on her earnings after she leaves her husband’s jurisdiction.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ: טוֹחֶנֶת, וְאוֹפָה, וּמְכַבֶּסֶת, מְבַשֶּׁלֶת, וּמְנִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ, מַצַּעַת לוֹ הַמִּטָּה, וְעוֹשָׂה בַּצֶּמֶר. הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָה אַחַת — לֹא טוֹחֶנֶת וְלֹא אוֹפָה וְלֹא מְכַבֶּסֶת. שְׁתַּיִם — אֵין מְבַשֶּׁלֶת, וְאֵין מְנִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ. שָׁלֹשׁ — אֵין מַצַּעַת לוֹ הַמִּטָּה, וְאֵין עוֹשָׂה בַּצֶּמֶר. אַרְבַּע — יוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּקָתֶדְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And these are tasks that a wife** must **perform for her husband: She grinds** wheat into flour, **and bakes, and washes clothes, cooks, and nurses her child, makes** her husband’s **bed, and makes** thread **from wool** by spinning it. **If she brought him one maidservant,** i.e., brought the maidservant with her into the marriage, the maidservant will perform some of these tasks. Consequently, the wife **does not** need to **grind, and does not** need to **bake, and does not** need to **wash clothes.** If she brought him **two** maidservants, **she does not** need to **cook and does not** need to **nurse her child** if she does not want to, but instead may give the child to a wet nurse. If she brought him **three** maidservants, **she does not** need to **make his bed and does not** need to **make** thread **from wool.** If she brought him **four** maidservants, **she may sit in a chair [*katedra*]** like a queen and not do anything, as her maidservants do all of her work for her.


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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ מֵאָה שְׁפָחוֹת — כּוֹפָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בַּצֶּמֶר, שֶׁהַבַּטָּלָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זִימָּה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה, שֶׁהַבַּטָּלָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי שִׁיעֲמוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he can compel her to make** thread **from wool, since idleness leads to licentiousness.** Consequently, it is better for a woman to be doing some kind of work. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who vows** that **his wife** is prohibited **from doing** any **work must divorce** her **and give** her the payment for her **marriage contract, since idleness leads to idiocy.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** טוֹחֶנֶת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מַטְחֶנֶת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּרִיחְיָא דִּידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the mishna’s choice of terminology the Gemara asks: **Could it enter your mind** that she **grinds** the wheat into flour? Ordinarily, grinding is performed in a mill using millstones that are rotated by water or by animals, so the woman herself does not actually grind the wheat. The Gemara answers: **Rather, say** that **she supervises the grinding** by bringing wheat to the mill and ensuring that it is ground properly. Alternatively, **if you wish, say** instead: She can grind the wheat herself **with a hand mill.**


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

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵין אִשָּׁה אֶלָּא לְיוֹפִי, אֵין אִשָּׁה אֶלָּא לְבָנִים. וְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵין אִשָּׁה אֶלָּא לְתַכְשִׁיטֵי אִשָּׁה. וְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיְּעַדֵּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ — יַלְבִּישֶׁנָּה כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן. הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּלְבִּין אֶת בִּתּוֹ — יַאֲכִילֶנָּה אֶפְרוֹחִים וְיַשְׁקֶנָּה חָלָב סָמוּךְ לְפִירְקָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A wife is only for beauty,** and **a wife is only for children,** but not for household tasks. **And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A wife is only for** wearing **a woman’s finery. And Rabbi Ḥiyya** similarly **teaches: One who wishes to beautify his wife should clothe her** in **linen garments,** and **one who wishes to whiten his daughter** so that she will have a fair complexion, **should feed her young chickens, and should give her milk to drink toward the time of her maturity.**


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

וּמְנִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. דְּתַנְיָא: נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לְהָנִיק אֶת בְּנָהּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שׁוֹמֶטֶת דַּד מִפִּיו. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כּוֹפָהּ וּמְנִיקָתוֹ. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה — אֵינוֹ כּוֹפָהּ. וְאִם הָיָה מַכִּירָהּ — נוֹתֵן לָהּ שְׂכָרָהּ וְכוֹפָהּ, וּמְנִיקָתוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna mentions among a wife’s obligations that she **nurses her child.** The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If a woman **took a vow not to nurse her child, Beit Shammai say:** Since she vowed, **she** must **remove** her **nipple from his mouth** and not nurse him. **Beit Hillel say:** Her husband **can compel her, and she** must **nurse** the child even against her will. However, if **she was divorced** and therefore had no further obligations to her husband, **he cannot compel her.** Nevertheless, **if** the baby **recognized her,** then even after the divorce, her husband may **pay her a salary** as a wet nurse **and compel her to nurse due to** the **danger** that the child will starve if he refuses to nurse from another woman. This *baraita* indicates that according to Beit Shammai a woman has no obligation to nurse her child. If she had a prior obligation to her husband to nurse the child, the vow would not take effect.


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

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּדְרָה הִיא, וְקִיֵּים לַהּ הוּא. וְקָסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: הוּא נוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: הִיא נָתְנָה אֶצְבַּע בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Even** if **you say** that the mishna is also in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai, here we are dealing with** a case **where she made** this **vow and** her husband **ratified** it **for her** by refraining from nullifying it. **Beit Shammai maintain** that in that case it is considered as if **he had placed his finger between her teeth,** i.e., he caused the vow to be in effect, meaning that in that case the responsibility lies with him. Since he declined the opportunity to nullify the vow, her obligation to nurse is canceled. **Beit Hillel maintain** that in that case **she put her finger between her** own **teeth,** i.e., she caused the vow to remain in effect. Consequently, although he ratified her vow, the responsibility rests on her, and for this reason her obligation is not annulled.


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

וְנִפְלְגוּ בִּכְתוּבָּה בְּעָלְמָא. וְעוֹד: תַּנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ מְנִיקָה! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, that the dispute is about who is responsible when a woman vows and her husband ratifies the vow, and it is not specifically about her obligation to nurse her child, then **let them dispute about a marriage contract in general,** with regard to whether or not a woman is entitled to payment for her marriage contract if she vows to prohibit her husband from deriving benefit from her. **And furthermore, it is taught** in a *baraita* **that Beit Shammai** explicitly **say** with regard to all women, not specifically in the context of vows: **She does not** need to **nurse** if she does not want to. **Rather, it is clear** that **the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai.**


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

אִם הָיָה מַכִּירָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara above quotes a *baraita* where it is taught that **if** the baby **recognized her,** her husband can compel her to continue nursing even after she is divorced, but he must pay her for nursing.