MISHNAH: Even though they said that a virgin collects 200 [zuz] and a widow a mina, if he wants to add even 100 minas, he may add¹ document is formulated to indicate that the husband obligates himself for 200/100 zuz by law; the additional sum he takes on himself must be spelled out separately.. If she became widowed or divorced, whether preliminarily or definitively married, she collects everything. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, definitively married, she collects everything; preliminarily married a virgin collects 200 [zuz] and a widow a mina since he added only with the idea to bring her in².

footnotes: ¹ The ketubah ² Since the document was signed and witnessed beforehand and it is stated that the addition is invalid before the definitive wedding, the question arises when and how the addition becomes enforceable by law.

HALAKHAH: “Even though they said that a virgin collects 200,” etc. How does he become indebted to her? Do not Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, if somebody writes a debenture for another person under the assumption that he owes him and it turns out that he does not owe, [he does not have]⁴ to give to him! He wants to give much to be called X’s son-in-law⁵. That is, if he decided this⁶. at the time of the preliminary marriage. What if he decided this⁶. at the time of the definitive marriage? He wants to give much for sexual relations with her, which are sweet⁷ “gift on the morning (after the nuptials)”; Latin dotalicium. This is the only reason accepted by the Babli, 56a.. That is if he slept with her. If he did not sleep with her? He wants to give much for the acquisition⁸ he made. If he had decided at the preliminary marriage, at the definitive marriage, he already is called X’s son-in-law, sexual relations are nothing new, there is no new acquisition; from thereon⁹ sum while married, what makes that addition enforceable? he wants to give much that she should not change her mind¹⁰. But can she? Was it not stated¹¹ 14:2. In strict talmudic law, divorce is a unilateral act by the husband though in cases of spousal abuse the court can force a divorce by punishing the husband “until he says, I want [to divorce]”. Otherwise, the wife cannot force a divorce. that “a man divorces only by his own will”? Rebbi Abin said, she makes his life miserable and he frees her¹².

footnotes: ⁴ From the parallel text in Halakhah 12:1, required by the context. If the addition is not valid for the woman who becomes a widow before her definitive wedding, why is the additional gift ever enforceable in court? Can the heirs not argue that the deceased never was obligated to pay the addition and, therefore, his estate is not required to pay? ⁵ The addition is payment for value received; this makes it an enforceable obligation. ⁶ To add to the obligatory amount of the ketubah ⁶ To add to the obligatory amount of the ketubah ⁷ Old German law knew of a similar gift, called Morgengabe, ⁸ The marriage which is called “acquisition”. ⁹ I. e., if the husband should add to the ketubah ¹⁰ But stay married to him. ¹¹ Mishnah Yebamot ¹² Nobody says that she needs a court to get a divorce.

It was stated: Just as the husband decides¹³, so the father decides¹⁴; only that the husband transfers rights in writing but the father only by speech, restricted to those things that can be acquired by speech¹⁵. What is that? Gidul in the name of Rav: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. And how much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her¹⁶, the daughter acquired among the daughters. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, Gidul found something large and said something small¹⁷! But it is as follows: How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons¹⁸. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, is that something small? Does he not acquire a wife on top of movables with one peruṭa’s worth¹⁹ (in the tradition of the House of Hillel; Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1). The peruṭah is the smallest coin, about 2 g bronze, valued at 1/144 or 1/192 of a silver denar (1/6 or 1/8 of the smallest Roman coin, the as). That coin disappeared with the Hasmonean kingdom; it remained as the smallest unit of value in legal theory. In rabbinic practice, Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘ezer 27:10, the value of a peruṭah is half a grain of sterling silver (0.0324 g). If the marriage of the couple is contracted by the respective parents, the groom acquires not only a wife but all that is promised him from both sides by giving one peruṭah. Since the peruṭah is the smallest unit of computation, the fact that one may acquire more than one thing with one peruṭah is not trivial and needs to be spelled out.? But nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth²⁰ 2:6. It is possible for a man to simultaneously preliminarily marry any number of women by giving something of value to one of them if she is empowered by the other women to receive the value on their behalf and if there is at least one peruṭah for each of them.! But cannot a person acquire real estate and several movables with one peruṭa’s worth²¹1:5); therefore, any number of things can be acquired by giving one peruṭah for real estate (cf. also Peah, Chapter 3, Notes 135 ff.).? For a person can acquire two pieces of real estate with one peruṭa’s worth, but nobody can acquire two wives with one peruṭa’s worth.

footnotes: ¹³ He may decide to give to his wife more than the legal minimum. ¹⁴ He decides to give his daughter a dowry. The daughters have a legal right to a dowry from the estate but not from the living father. ¹⁵ Dowries of daughters and endowments of sons are the only things that can be finalized by speech only; Babli 102a. ¹⁶ In the Babli, 102a: If the groom preliminarily married the bride immediately after the young couple was promised the money by their respective parents. The Yerushalmi has to be understood in this sense also. ¹⁷ By restricting the right of informal acquisition to the daughter. ¹⁸ This is the Babli’s formulation of Rav Gidul’s statement. “Among the daughters” means that if the father should die before the dowry was paid, its amount does not form part of the estate; the same holds for the son and the capital promised him. ¹⁹ The minimum amount a man has to give a woman for the preliminary marriage is one peruṭah ²⁰ Mishnah Qiddušin ²¹ Real estate can be acquired by money and everything can be acquired with real estate (Mishnah Qiddušin

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “How much are you giving to your son? Such and such. How much are you giving to your daughter? Such and such. When he preliminarily married her, the daughter acquired among the daughters and the son among the sons,” but only if it is a first marriage²². This follows what Rebbi Ḥanania said: If somebody definitively married off his son in a house, the latter acquired the house, but only if it is a first marriage²³ 144a, only if (1) the son was an adult, (2) marrying a virgin, (3) as his first wife, and (4) is the first of his children to be married. Since “house” usually means “one-room house”, the father gives the house to be used by the pair as bridal chamber, with them staying there alone after all wedding guests have left.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, she²⁴ acquired movables but did not acquire the house. Do they disagree? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it that his father used it for storage²⁵. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is needed in case what was stored was borrowed from the market. Rebbi Abbahu said, if he said it is loaned²⁶, he did not acquire it. There came a case before Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Abun and he instructed following Rebbi Abbahu. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, essentialy this has no basis²⁷ cit., this is called “practice lacking a reason”. but the rabbis build and add to it!

footnotes: ²² The waiver of the rules of acquisition explained in the previous paragraph applies only if it is the first marriage for both parties. ²³ In the Babli, Baba Batra ²⁴ Probably this sentence has to be formulated in the masculine. ²⁵ While the newlyweds were living there alone, if the place was used as storage for produce, that is indication enough that it was intended only as a temporary dwelling place and R. Hanania will agree that the son did not acquire the house with the wife. ²⁶ If the father tells his son that the house is a loan, not a gift, it is not a gift. ²⁷ Greek θεμελίωσις “basis”. The acquisition of valuables by speech has no basis in the rabbinic legal system; nevertheless, it is subject to detailed rules. In the Babli, loc.

You say that the father decides for his daughter; even if she is an adult²⁸? Let us hear from the following: The father decides for his daughter, but the mother does not decide for her daughter, nor the brother for his sister²⁹. Is there a difference about his sister whether she is an adolescent or an adult? So here, there is no difference whether she is an adolescent or an adult³⁰ formulates no age criterion, there is none.. Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked, even a third party? They said, even if she be an adult? A third party, let us hear from the following: The father decides for his daughter, but the mother does not decide for her daughter, nor the brother for his sister³¹. So much more for the adult. Also in money matters it is so: Give your daughter to X and I shall give you so-and-so much. Buy this field and I shall give you so-and-so much³².

footnotes: ²⁸ Is the promised dowry for an adult daughter due on a verbal promise if the daughter is already an adult, no longer in the father’s power. Since the Babli (Note 23) requires the bride to be a virgin, it must deny the power of verbal acquisition to the adult daughter. ²⁹ Reading of Alfassi (12:1,#384): “Neither the brother for his sister nor the mother for her daughter, even if she is underage.” Mother and brother can give only in the legal forms, by money, document, or handing over. ³⁰ Since the baraita ³¹ If mother and brother are disqualified from informal giving, so are third parties. ³² If close relatives other than the father are excluded, then third parties in general are excluded.

So is the Mishnah³³: “Because he did only add for the love of the first night, when he had intercourse with her.” If he slept with her, divorced her, and took her back³⁴ before he paid her for the divorce; he remains obligated for the entire sum., the love of the first night is still there. If he slept with her, died, and she became available to the levir, the love of the first night is still there³⁵. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Alexis in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah who said, if they were divorced or widowed after a preliminary marriage she collects 200, after the definitive marriage she collects everything. Rebbi Ḥanania said, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abbai³⁶ said, they said to Rebbi Ḥanania, get outside to recite³⁷. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Yosa, Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁸ in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Yose said, we had a rule that Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jonathan said the same thing. As it was stated³⁹132a.: If somebody’s son went overseas and one heard that he died, [the father] went and wrote his property to somebody else, and after that, the son returned. The gift remains valid; Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia says that the gift is invalid since he would not have written the deed if he had known that his son was alive⁴⁰. And Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Menasia⁴¹., Rav Naḥman, the great authority in matters of money and contracts, agrees.; and Rebbi Yannai said, they said to Rebbi Ḥanania, get outside to recite. And Rebbi Yose bar Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, practice does not follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah⁴². An actual case was judged according to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah⁴³56a..

footnotes: ³³ This is a parapharase of the Mishnah, given also in the Babli, 56a. The problem of the Babli, whether the contract becomes valid by intercourse or by the possibility of intercourse, attributed there to the Galilean R. Abin, seems to have been decided in Galilee without great discussion. Cf. J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה2, p. 494, and Halakhah 2. ³⁴ He took her back on the terms of the prior ketubah ³⁵ Her claim to the entire sum is intact. ³⁶ This name is unknown otherwise. The quote below and the parallel in the Babli (56a) show that one must read: R. Yannai. ³⁷ In the Babli: Get out and recite your verse outside; a standard expression of disapproval. ³⁸ The Amora quoted here cannot be R. Yose, the colleague of R. Jonah, who proves below that practice follows R. Eleazar ben Azariah. Therefore, the name quoted later, R. Yose bar Ze‘ira (no relative of R. Ze‘ira) seems to be the correct one, characterizing his statement as that of a very minor figure. ³⁹ Tosephta 4:14, Babli Baba Batra ⁴⁰ The deed is a will, executed now to become effective after the testator’s death, and duly signed by two witnesses. ⁴¹ In the Babli, loc. cit ⁴² His opinion is not counted against that of R. Jonah, head of the Academy. ⁴³ The Babli agrees to the practice after an inconclusive debate, Ketubot

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes for a virgin a contract of 200 [zuz] and she writes “I received 100 from you”, or for a widow a mina and she writes “I received 50 from you.⁴⁴” Rebbi Meïr says, anyone who diminishes [the ketubah] of a virgin below 200 or that of a widow below 100 is engaging in whoring copulation⁴⁵ are the absolute minimum. He admits that there are places where one does not write a ketubah document; this fact does not diminish the amount of ketubah due..

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Obviously the woman must agree to the smaller sum. ⁴⁵ For him, the sums of 100/200 zuz

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he wants he writes,” etc. Does Rebbi Jehudah think that the minimum for a virgin is a mina and for a widow 50 zuz⁴⁶? Should he not write so from the start? But it must be a diminution afterwards⁴⁷ The Babli disagrees (57a) in the name of Bar Qappara.. Why can he not write that “I received from you such and such”? It was found that bar Kappara stated: “I received from you such and such⁴⁸”. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Rebbi Jehudah formulated this only for the end; but at the start, even Rebbi Jehudah agrees⁴⁷ The Babli disagrees (57a) in the name of Bar Qappara.. What is the beginning and what is the end? The colleagues in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he had intercourse⁴⁹, and after he had intercourse. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of R. Joḥanan: Before he took her in, and after he took her in⁵⁰. If he did not have intercourse with her, divorced her, and took her in again; that is before and after⁵¹ of a mina, it is at the end. But since she still is a virgin, it is the beginning. The definition of R. Ze‘ira leads to the construction of a self-contradictory case; it should be rejected..

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Since those are the amounts he settles for. ⁴⁷ R. Jehudah cannot alter the established practice that at the time of the wedding the amounts must be 200/100 zuz. ⁴⁸ Any amount is possible if the wife agrees. ⁴⁷ R. Jehudah cannot alter the established practice that at the time of the wedding the amounts must be 200/100 zuz. ⁴⁹ This is the definition of beginning. ⁵⁰ “Taking in” is the ceremony of the definitive marriage; in this second version the wife can write a partial receipt even before they sleep together.In a different setting, the Babli (57a) quotes these two possibilities and in addition “beginning” as before the definitive marriage and “end” as after sexual relations. This is theoretical since the Babli decides that practice follows R. Meïr. ⁵¹ Since a woman divorced after the definitive marriage but before sexual relations can claim only a ketubah

What is a wife and what is a concubine⁵² does not exist in rabbinic practice, the question is of purely theoretical character, an inquiry into the essence of the biblical institution of legal concubine.? Rebbi Meïr says, a wife has a ketubah, a concubine has no ketubah⁵³, he must hold that a concubine is not married. This is the position of the Babli, Sanhedrin 21a, articulated by Rav. (For rabbinic practice in Medieval Spain, cf. Menaḥem ben Aaron ben Zeraḥ, צדה לדרך Part 3, Chapter 2.). Rebbi Jehudah says, both have a ketubah. A wife has a ketubah and the ketubah stipulations; a concubine has a ketubah but no ketubah stipulations⁵⁴. Rav⁵⁵ Jehudah in the name of Rav: These are the opinions of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah. But the words of the Sages⁵⁶: “A man may marry a woman and stipulate with her not to feed her and not to provide for her⁵⁷ of 200/100 zuz). It also recognizes that a woman of higher social standing can buy herself a husband on her terms. Cf. Tosefta ki-Fshutah, part 6, p. 244.. Not only that, but that she should feed and provide for him and teach him Torah⁵⁸ 3:3, Note 137.. It happened that Rebbi Joshua, son of Rebbi Aqiba, married a woman and stipulated with her not to feed her and not to provide for her. Not only that, but that she should feed and provide for him and teach him Torah. But when years of famine came and they distributed the properties among themselves⁵⁹, she started complaining about him to the Sages of Israel. He⁶⁰ said to them, for me she is trustworthy more than anybody. She told them, it is true that thus I stipulated with him. [They said to her]⁶¹, nothing comes after acquisition⁶² the execution of the contract alone does not make it valid or irrevocable. For this it needs an act of acquisition, exemplified by Ruth 4:7, where the acquirer (Boaz) takes his sandal and lets the seller (the redeemer) move it in front of witnesses. {In the Tosephta, the expression is קיצה “contract”.} After acquisition, a contract can only be modified by a written rider agreed to by the parties..”

footnotes: ⁵² Since the institution of pilegeš ⁵³ Since R. Meïr in the Mishnah forbids any marriage without a full ketubah ⁵⁴ Since he permits any modification of the financial aspects of marriage by written mutual consent, he also admits a situation in which a female of lower social rank signs away her rights. ⁵⁵ The context requires this translation. ⁵⁶ Tosephta 4:7. ⁵⁷ This Tosephta has two aspects. It implies that the institution of concubines has no place in rabbinic law but that the parties are free to decide on the material aspects of their marriage (while retaining the formal requirement of a ketubah ⁵⁸ This may mean that she pays for him so he can go and study full time. However, R. Petaḥya of Regensburg reports that a daughter of the Gaon of Baghdad was a lecturer in his Academy, and the Yerushalmi looks approvingly on women’s Torah study; cf. Berakhot ⁵⁹ It is not clear what this means; it could be that her family’s property was distributed among the heirs and her part was no longer sufficient. ⁶⁰ R. Aqiba’s son said to the Sages. ⁶¹ Inserted from the Tosephta, not in the Yerushalmi text. ⁶² Since there are contracts written for the future, such as the ketubah,

MISHNAH: One gives a virgin twelve months from when the husband requested to marry her to provide for herself⁶³. Just as one gives to the woman so one gives to the man to provide for himself⁶⁴. And to a widow thirty days⁶⁵. If the time has come and they are not definitively married, they eat from his [property] and may eat heave⁶⁶ 22:11, speaking about heave, reads: “If a Cohen buy a person with his money, that person may eat it.” Since the preliminary marriage is formally an acquisition by money, the bride can eat heave as soon as the groom is required to feed her. Therefore, if the delay of the wedding is his fault, the girl’s family can require that he feed her after the statutory 12 months delay, and he can fulfill his obligation by providing her with heave (for which he did not pay) and which she must eat in levitic purity in her father’s house.. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one gives her everything in heave. Rebbi Aqiba said, half profane and half heave⁶⁷.

footnotes: ⁶³ To make her trousseau. ⁶⁴ To look for a house and otherwise prepare for a family. The girl’s family cannot force the husband into a definitive marriage before 12 months after the date of the preliminary marriage. ⁶⁵ Since she already has a trousseau. ⁶⁶ If the prospective husband is a Cohen, the preliminary marriage is the act of acquisition. Lev. ⁶⁷ As the Halakhah explains, a woman regularly has periods of impurity. R. Aqiba requires the groom to provide her with profane food for her periods of impurity; R. Tarphon, in the interpretation of the Babli, thinks that she can sell the heave and buy profane food for the money. This is a very problematic proposition since heave, for which the only possible buyers are other Cohanim, cannot fetch a price commensurate with that of profane food.

HALAKHAH: “One gives a virgin twelve months.” It was stated⁶⁸: Adulthood in its time is twelve months. Rebbi Hila said, state: One gives an adult twelve months and one gives her a preliminary wedding, and thirty days to a widow. We have stated: “One gives a virgin twelve months,” and you say so⁶⁹? Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila⁷⁰: After she was an adult for twelve months one gives her the preliminary marriage and afterwards thirty days. If she spent twelve months for the first⁷¹ and then the second one came. If he says to her, did you not wait already? She can say to him, I love you better than the young one⁷². He is a widower, she is a virgin, and he wants to definitively marry. She can say, I love you better than a bachelor⁷³. If he is a bachelor and she a widow, and she wants to be definitively married. He can say, I love you better than a virgin⁷³. If she is underage and wants to grow up one listens to her⁷⁴.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ Similar texts are Tosephta 5:1, Babli 57b. It is difficult to know what “in its time” means. The Tosephta reads: “Adulthood is equivalent to a request [for marriage], twelve months.” This means the same as the explanation in the Babli: “If a girl became preliminarily married after she was an adult for 12 months, one gives her 30 days as for a widow,” since she had ample time to sew her trousseau. One can read the Yerushalmi in the same sense, that the time of reaching adulthood is as good as an engagement. ⁶⁹ How can the time given between definitive and preliminary marriages be 30 days when it is 12 months? ⁷⁰ This is the explanation in the Babli (cf. Note 68) where also the tannaitic text is close to unintelligible. ⁷¹ And for some reason, she was not married but divorced or widowed. ⁷² She has everything prepared but never used her trousseau. Her new fiancé wants to marry immediately and notes that she already has everything. She can say that her trousseau was good enough for the first, to whom she never was definitively married, but for him it will not be good enough and she needs more time to prepare more things. She cannot be forced be marry immediately. ⁷³ The same kind of argument as in the preceding case. In each case, neither party can be sued for breach of contract before the time allotted in the Mishnah has expired. ⁷³ The same kind of argument as in the preceding case. In each case, neither party can be sued for breach of contract before the time allotted in the Mishnah has expired. ⁷⁴ While the underage girl can be preliminarily married to a man by her father without her being asked, she cannot be definitively married against her will while underage. The formulation of the Babli (57b) is: One does not contract for an underage girl to be definitively married while underage but one may contract for an underage girl to be definitively married when reaching adulthood. That formulation does not require the underage girl to ask for the delay.

When the time came and they were not definitively married, they eat from his property and [do not] eat heave. If the husbands died, they eat from his property and eat heave⁷⁵ 58a, s. v. ואפילו; there it reads: הִגִּיעַ זְמָן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ בַעֲלֵיהֶן אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה. “When the time came and they were not definitively married or their husbands died, they eat from his property and eat heave.” The next Mishnah will state that all this and the connected difficulties are removed by later practice, that no woman married to a Cohen can eat from her husband’s heave unless she is definitively married to him. The practice of the returnees from Babylonia probably should read: “When the time has come and they were not definitively married, they eat from his property and eat heave. If the husband died, they eat from his property and [do not] eat heave.” The levir who is a Cohen cannot cause his prospective wife to eat heave since in contrast to his brother he has no preliminary marriage that could count as acquisition. A Cohen’s widow can eat heave only if she remains a member of the priestly clan, i. e., if any descendants of her husband by her survive her husband’s death. Vice versa, a Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel can eat heave after her husband’s death only if no descendants of her husband by her survive her husband’s death.. Samuel, the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: Only if the time was up on a Wednesday⁷⁶. What if the time was up on Tuesday or Thursday? Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Levi: Both say that he is as if the Sages had jailed him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, if the delay is his fault, she is fed from his property⁷⁷.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ The word in parenthesis is a correction by the scribe himself, in the wrong gender and probably at the wrong place. The sentence is quoted by Tosafot, ⁷⁶ “12 months after she was asked to marry” means that the virgin can request to be definitively married on the first Wednesday following the end of the twelfth month (Mishnah 1:1). Therefore, she cannot ask to be sustained by her husband before that Wednesday. ⁷⁷ The court will uphold her claim to be paid back the money she spent on her own food only if the delay is the groom’s fault.

It was stated⁷⁸ 1:1, Note 3. If heave cannot be eaten, it has to be given in minute amounts (“1 kernel of grain frees an entire silo”) and be destroyed; no wife can be fed with it.: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one gives all heave to her, for heave is found everywhere. Rebbi Aqiba says, half profane [food] and half heave, for women frequently are impure for holy things.⁷⁹” It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any place, where heave is mentioned, one gives her twice the corresponding amount of profane [food]⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Tosephta 5:1, Babli 58a, speaking of a Cohen’s wife. It is to be noted that the complete rules of purity were fully observed for almost 200 years after the destruction of the Temple; cf. Berakhot ⁷⁹ Since she is not yet definitively married she can be presumed not to be pregnant; then she is impure every month during her menstrual period. ⁸⁰ He agrees with R. Ṭarphon that she can be given all her food as heave but he holds that for her period of impurity she has to be given enough of the heave that she could sell a certain amount to Cohanim and buy profane food. Since there are few buyers, heave can be sold only at a large discount. Babylonian sources (Babli 58a and Tosephta) record a fourth opinion, by R. Jehudah ben Bathyra of Nisibis, that she is given ⅔ of heave and ⅓ in profane food, which should be enough for her total sustenance.

MISHNAH: The levir does not cause her to eat heave⁸¹. If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, or even all the time for the husband except for one day for the levir⁸², or all the time for the levir except for one day for the husband, she cannot eat heave. That is the earlier Mishnah⁸³. The court in later times said that no woman eats heave unless she had been entering the bridal chamber⁸⁴.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Since he cannot acquire his sister-in-law otherwise than by sexual relations, after which she will be his wife in all respects, a woman engaged to be married by the levir is not part of his clan. ⁸² The moment a levir enters the picture, the earlier acquisition by the husband is suspended. ⁸³ Both Mishnaiot 3 and 4. ⁸⁴ The definitive marriage. For the original husband, no sexual act is required.

HALAKHAH: “The levir does not cause her to eat heave,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we stated there: The sister-in-law is fed from her husband’s estate all of the three months⁸⁵ 4:11. Therefore she can claim her sustenance from her husband’s estate like any other widow. The same statement is in the Babli 107b, Yebamot 41b.. If her levir had come before the court⁸⁶ after the end of the three months’ waiting period. and fled, she is fed from his property⁸⁷. If he became sick it is as if he had fled⁸⁸. עמד, this rule does not apply if the levir is sick at the end of the three months and is unable to marry his sister-in-law at the first possible moment.. If he went overseas it is as if he had fled. If the widow said, I am bound in my widowhood to my husband’s house, one listens to her⁸⁹ the heirs have to pay indefinitely for her upkeep in her husband’s house.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: The one who says, I shall not giveḥalîṣah⁹⁰*,* is like the one who says, I shall not divorce. Rav Zabda said, Rebbi Isaac intructed that the one who says., I shall not give ḥalîṣah, is like the one who says, I shall not divorce.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ The widow of the childless man cannot remarry or be freed by her levir to remarry until three months have passed since her husband’s death and it has been ascertained that she is not pregnant, Mishnah Yebamot ⁸⁶ And he had agreed to marry his brother’s widow in levirate, or to free her by ḥalîṣah ⁸⁷ Since he had taken responsibility for his sister-in-law, he cannot avoid his financial responsibility by his absence. ⁸⁸ In the interpretation of Tosaphot, 107b, s. v ⁸⁹ If she says that she has no desire to remarry, neither in levirate to her levir nor to any other man by ḥalîṣah, ⁹⁰ He says that he wants to marry his sister-in-law; therefore, he becomes responsible for her upkeep immediately at the end of the three months’ waiting period.

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated⁹¹ 8:1, Note 9.: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money⁹²;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl⁹³ Then she has to follow all Jewish laws valid for women (only that, being unable to marry, she is permitted guiltless unmarried sex with everybody except Jewish men). By manumission she would become a full Jewish woman. While a Gentile cannot become impure by biblical standards, the immersion in the ritual bath makes her subject to all rules of purity. If her owner is a Cohen, she may eat his sacred food if in the appropriate state of ritual purity. A wife is usually acquired in preliminary marriage, as far as criminal law is concerned, by a gift of money or its equivalent. The argument is shaky since one should mention that if the wife is acquired by a matrimonial contract or by sexual relations without a gift of money (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1), there would be no reason to permit heave to the Israel woman preliminarily married to a Cohen. Nowhere do we find that the way the preliminary marriage is effected makes any difference.? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber⁹⁴ 4:12, Note 197) mentions that in a famine, R. Tarphon (a Cohen) preliminarily married 300 women to give them access to sanctified food. This means that the “later Mishnah” has to be dated some time after the destruction of the Temple when, probably, the importance of heave for the income of Cohanim was rapidly diminishing.. ⁹⁵”Already Rebbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra⁹⁶ at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations⁹⁷ to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave⁹⁸, it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse⁹⁹ 18:11. The wife is part of the household only after the definitive marriage. The argument is rejected in Sifry Num. 117, since in. v. 13 a similar restriction is noted, “every pure person in your household shall eat it,” and it is a generally accepted hermeneutical principle that “two consecutive restrictions mean a relaxation”, in this case, that the wife may eat heave from the moment of the preliminary marriage. Therefore, the restriction to definitively married wives is purely rabbinical.: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rebbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession¹⁰⁰ evidence. In the law of real estate and slaves, it denotes the exercise of possession. For example, if an intestate person dies without heirs (e. g., a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family), his property becomes ownerless and is up for grabs. Therefore, if somebody goes to the ownerless real estate and acts as proprietor, fencing in or harvesting a field or painting a house, he has acquired the piece of real estate by his action. Similarly, if somebody takes an ownerless slave from the estate and tells him to work on his orders, the work of the slave makes him the property of the person giving the orders. The work can be quite symbolical, such as carrying a stone for a short stretch, to qualify as חֲזָקָה and if the acquirer is a Cohen, the slave is qualified to eat heave. Therefore, the means of acquisition of slave girls and wives are only partially comparable; the ways of acquisition of a slave are not subordinated to those for a wife. to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.

footnotes: ⁹¹ A similar statement is in Tosephta 5:1, where, however, the intermediate Mishnah is not mentioned. Cf. also Terumot ⁹² Lev. 22:11. The verse ends: “He shall eat [the Cohen’s sacred food]”. A parallel statement in the Babli, 57b. ⁹³ The slave girl, by becoming the property of a Jew, is presumed to become Jewish by immersion in a miqweh. ⁹⁴ Tosephta 5:1. However, the same Tosephta (and the Yerushalmi. Yebamot ⁹⁵ Tosephta 5:1. ⁹⁶ The leader of Babylonian Jewry in the first half of the 2nd Century C.E. ⁹⁷ Being Gentile, she could be married to a Gentile by sexual relations. But sexual relations with her are forbidden to a Jew and, therefore, she cannot be acquired by a Jew through sexual relations either as a slave or a wife. ⁹⁸ If preliminary and definitive marriage are enacted together in the bridal chamber without any gift of money, the woman is a wife and entitled to eat her husband’s food by biblical standards. ⁹⁹ Num. ¹⁰⁰ The word חֲזָקָה “grasping” can have two very different meanings. In legal arguments, it denotes a general assumption which generates prima facie

MISHNAH: If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings¹⁰¹, she can work and sustain herself¹⁰². The excess, Rebbi Meïr says, is dedicated, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane¹⁰³.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ He makes a vow that any benefit that will accrue to him from his wife’s earnings shall be dedicated to some religious institution. ¹⁰² It is explained in Mishnah 6 how much a wife must work for her husband to be entitled to support. If the husband does not support her, she certainly is entitled to work and use her work for her own support. The husband cannot dedicate anything to which he has no right of possession. ¹⁰³ He holds that nobody can dedicate anything before it exists; therefore the husband cannot dedicate his wife’s future earnings: the vow is void.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is sanctified as his property¹⁰⁵ 2:1, 51d 1. 16; Babli Arakhin 5a). Since he must agree with R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian and everybody else that nobody can dedicate anything that is not under his control, he will interpret the husband’s vow not that he dedicates the future earnings of his wife but he dedicates her hands for what they will produce in the future. Since the hands do exist and the wife is required to work for him, the vow is valid.. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane as his property¹⁰⁶. ¹⁰⁷ 11:4, Notes 50–53. In the Babli, 57b, different but similarly sounding explanations are given in the names of the Babylonians Rav and Samuel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs⁵¹ of a mina, it is at the end. But since she still is a virgin, it is the beginning. The definition of R. Ze‘ira leads to the construction of a self-contradictory case; it should be rejected., as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated.¹⁰⁸ Rebbi Ze‘ira said, what one states there¹⁰⁹ is not in the Babli. supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When was this said? If he does not feed her. But if he feeds her, everybody agrees that it was sanctified.” But is not everything a wife has subject to the husband’s claim to its yield¹¹⁰ he has a contractual interest in the increase of property generated by these earnings since such an increase could increase the cash yield which will be his. Therefore, he should be an interested party and his vow should be recognized by both R. Meïr and R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian without restrictions. This argument is too far-fetched to merit an answer.?

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Rebbi Meïr holds that a man means what he says (Nazir ¹⁰⁶ Nobody can dedicate anything that is not under his control; the husband can appropriate his wife’s work for himself as profane property. ¹⁰⁷ The following text is from Nedarim ⁵¹ Since a woman divorced after the definitive marriage but before sexual relations can claim only a ketubah ¹⁰⁸ End of the parallel in Nedarim. ¹⁰⁹ In Babylonia. The baraita ¹¹⁰ In the absence of a written contract to the contrary, the husband is the administrator of the wife’s property; he is paid for his efforts by the cash yield of the property (Mishnah 6:1). Therefore, while he has no property rights to his wife’s excess earnings, by the ketubah

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, [the status] of her earnings is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, the earnings are susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, the earnings are not susceptible to be dedicated from the first moment¹¹². “What I shall inherit from my father (today) is sold to you, what I shall catch today in my trap is sold to you; his words are valid.¹¹³ 6:7, Babli Baba Meṣï‘a 16a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 212. In the last source, the text is a commentary on Ex. 22:24, which is read as: “If you extend a loan of what you have with you to a poor person,” meaning that transactions cannot validly be made about nonexisting things (explanation by J. N. Epstein).” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he takes out a loan for his father’s burial shrouds, if his father was sick or in mortal danger¹¹⁴. cit., concurs that this is a rabbinic exemption from the rules if necessary for his father’s honor.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if the trap was set¹¹⁵ Meṣi‘a 16a/b, the transaction is validated only on an emergency basis, if otherwise the catcher would have nothing to eat. It seems that the Tosephta follows the Yerushalmi.. And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But as a dedication it would not be sanctified. Why? Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian¹¹⁶. One could say, there is a difference about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful¹¹⁷; but cf. Note 226.). Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Do you remember that both you and Rebbi Jeremiah were saying in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Who stated about the dedication, because the trap is not usually successful? The disagreement of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has many a thought¹¹⁸ contradicts R. Simeon ben Laqish’s explanation of the Mishnah, which describes a setting in which the husband has lost his rights to his wife’s earnings. Why did he not explain the Mishnah simply because one cannot dedicate future earnings, the explanation accepted in the Babli? The answer is that he would agree to the Babli’s explanation, except that he has another one in addition. Since the Mishnah can be explained in several ways consistent with his legal doctrines, he may choose different (parallel, not contradictory) doctrines in different situations..

footnotes: ¹¹² They cannot be dedicated before they exist. ¹¹³ Tosephta Nedarim ¹¹⁴ The transaction should be invalid as long as his father is still alive. The Babli, loc ¹¹⁵ The selling of the expected catch is accepted as regular trading practice once the trap is set because the probability that there will be a catch is high. In the Babli, Baba ¹¹⁶ This fixes practice following R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian, that futures contracts in general cannot be enforced.. In the Babli, 59a, this is an explicit statement. ¹¹⁷ Even R. Meïr will agree that a contract of which both parties assume that it will not be realized is invalid. The technical term for such a contract is אַסְמַכְתָּא. (Since few people used to marry with the idea that the marriage would end in divorce, some rabbinic authorities hold that pre-nuptial agreements about the consequences of a divorce are asmakhta ¹¹⁸ The explanation that a dedication of future earnings is invalid as asmakhta

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If somebody dedicated his slave’s earnings and the latter was a hunter, what are the rules¹¹⁹? Let us hear from the following: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one is dedicated but his earnings are profane¹²⁰. His [slave’s] earnings, he is profane and his earnings are dedicated¹²¹ seems to hold that an owner is not obligated to feed his slave.. ¹²² Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his injuries, his pain, his shame, and impairment but he shall go out and subsist on alms. Did we not state¹²³ 3:8.: If somebody dedicates his slave, that one takes out his provisions but the remainder is dedicated¹²⁴. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, nobody thinks that he should die¹²⁵. [ ] more than for slaves¹²⁶ 8:4 from a different editorial team: אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. מְצוּוִּים יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפַרְנֵס בְּנֵי חוֹרִין יוֹתֵר מֵעֲבָדִים. “Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to provide for free persons than for slaves.”. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, if somebody cuts off the hands of another person’s slave, that one’s owner collects the payments for his damages, his pain, his shame, and impairment¹²⁷ 8:4 one adds: His medical costs. This means that the owner presents the bill for medical costs to the person causing the injury. but he shall go out and subsist on alms. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Jews are obligated to care for amputees, even slaves.¹²⁸: “R. Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to provide for amputated slaves than for whole ones.” On that statement then comes the objection that R. Joḥanan shares his meat and wine with his slave. Rebbi Joḥanan gave to his slave from everything he himself ate¹²⁹, the answer is given that his rule is legal, his behavior moral. and quoted for this¹³⁰ 31:15, speaking of Job’s slaves.: “Did not his Maker make me in the belly and formed me likewise in a womb?”

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ If the owner expects the slave to feed himself from his catch. ¹²⁰ The slave becomes Temple property, but he can use anything he catches or earns for himself without stealing dedicated property. ¹²¹ In this version, the slave cannot eat anything he catches because that immediately becomes Temple property, any profane use of which is larceny. The Tanna of this baraita ¹²² This sentence is out of place and belongs to the discussion below. ¹²³ Tosephta ‘Arakhin ¹²⁴ Even though the slave is not dedicated, since the owner is obligated to feed his slave one automatically interprets his dedication to mean that only the excess earnings over the slave’s minimal needs are dedicated. ¹²⁵ It remains open whether there is an obligation on the part of the owner to feed his slave but in any case, nobody thinks that the slave should suffer king Midas’s fate that he could not eat anything that he made or earned. ¹²⁶ The text is defective. The original text must have been similar to the parallel in Baba Qama ¹²⁷ In Baba Qama ¹²⁸ In Baba Qama ¹²⁹ His deeds do not follow his words that the owner has the right to let his slave be fed from charity. In Baba Qama ¹³⁰ Job

MISHNAH: These are the kinds of work a woman does for her husband: She grinds flour, bakes, launders, nurses her baby, makes his bed, and spins wool¹³¹. If she brought a slave girl with her¹³², she does not have to grind flour, bake, and launder. Two, she does not have to nurse her baby. Three, she does not have to make his bed or spin wool. Four, she sits in a chair¹³³. Rebbi Eliezer says, even if she brought him a hundred slave girls, he forces her to spin wool because indolence causes immorality. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also a man who by a vow forbids his wife to work must divorce her and pay her ketubah¹⁶⁴ since idleness induces mental illness.

footnotes: ¹³¹ The amount is determined in Mishnah 13. ¹³² As her dowry. ¹³³ Greek καθέδρα “chair”. “Sitting in a καθέδρα” means “sitting idle”. ¹⁶⁴ Since the divorce is his fault.

HALAKHAH: “These are the kinds of work a woman does for her husband,” etc. It was stated¹³⁴: Seven main labors did they enumerate; the rest the Sages did not need to specify¹³⁵.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ Tosephta 5:4. ¹³⁵ The Babli (61a) notes that the additional services, such as mixing the wine, a wife does even if otherwise she is “sitting in a chair”.

“She nurses her baby.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, is says only “her baby,” therefore not twins¹³⁶. Why does it say “her baby”? As it was stated¹³⁷: “A man cannot force his wife to nurse another man’s child, nor can a woman force her husband to let her nurse another woman’s child¹³⁸. If she made a vow not to nurse her baby, the House of Shammai say that one removes the breast nipple from his mouth¹³⁹ Chapter 10). If he does not annul his wife’s vow, he has to pay the wet-nurse., but the House of Hillel say, one forces her¹⁴⁰. If she was divorced¹⁴¹, one cannot force her if [the baby] is not used to her, but if he is used to her one forces her¹⁴² 2:5, the formulation is: If the baby recognizes his mother one may not give him to a wet-nurse since that would be a danger to his life. and pays her wages to nurse her baby.” How old is the baby if he can be presumed to know her? Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁴³ in the name of Rav: Three months. But Rebbi Ze‘ira was staring at him¹⁴⁴. He asked him, why are you staring at me? Should I say to you following Samuel, since Samuel said, three days¹⁴⁵? Samuel follows his opinion, since Samuel said, I recognized¹⁴⁶ the midwives who delivered me. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, I recognized the circumciser who circumcised me. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I recognized the women who kept my mother company.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ The singular implies that the husband has to hire a wet-nurse for the second child. Aliassi (§274) quotes this rule in the name of R. Ḥanina. ¹³⁷ Tosephta 5:5, in a different order; a partial quote in the Babli, 59b. ¹³⁸ To earn money. ¹³⁹ The reason of the House of Shammai is not stated. The Babli, 59b, conjectures that the vow is one “between her and him” and, therefore, it would be in the husband’s power to annul the vow (cf. Nedarim ¹⁴⁰ They always hold that nobody can get rid of his obligations by a vow. The vow does not have to be annulled. ¹⁴¹ The obligation to nurse her baby ends with the divorce. ¹⁴² In Tosephta Niddah ¹⁴³ In the Babli, this is attributed to Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, of Rav’s Academy. Probably something is missing from the text since R. Jeremiah cannot really have addressed his teacher R. Ze‘ira as “you”. ¹⁴⁴ “Staring at somebody” is always a sign of disapproval. ¹⁴⁵ In the Babli, 60a, Samuel is quoted as refusing to set a time limit but to put the mother in a line-up with other women and see whether the baby recognizes her. ¹⁴⁶ As a newborn.

It was stated¹⁴⁷ 2:3, Babli 60a. In both these texts, one reads: If he stopped after24months, one does not return him. A parallel text in Yerushalmi Niddah 1:5, with a different tradition of names.: A baby suckles continuously until 24 months; after that he is as if an unclean creature would suckle, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Joshua says, he suckles continuously even four or five years. If he stopped, one does not return him. How long? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁴⁸ in the name of Rav: From hour to hour¹⁴⁹. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Three days from hour to hour¹⁵⁰. It was stated: From hour to hour. Rebbi Hizqiyah, Rav: When has this been said? If he stopped while being healthy. But if he stopped because of sickness, one does return him. When there was no danger. But if it was because of danger, one returns him even after a number of days¹⁵¹.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ Tosephta Niddah ¹⁴⁸ This reading is impossible since R. Jacob bar Aḥa is one generation before R. Jeremiah. One must read “Rav Jeremiah”, the colleague and student of Rav. ¹⁴⁹ From a certain hour one day to the same hour the next day, i. e., 24 hours. ¹⁵⁰ In the Babli, 60a, this is attributed to the school of Samuel. ¹⁵¹ This argument is not mentioned in the Babli which, therefore, can beassumed to agree.

“If she brought”. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, not only if she brought but even if she could have brought¹⁵². As it was stated: His wife ascends with him but does not descend with him¹⁵³; a widow and her children descend but do not ascend¹⁵⁴; workers ascend but do not descend¹⁵⁵ Meṣi‘a 7:1); he cannot reduce his contribution below the standard accepted at the beginning of the contract.. The daughter neither ascends nor descends. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Jehudah said, because one cares for the slave girl¹⁵⁶. Rebbi Abun said, Because these labors are degrading, they are referred to as the slave girl’s. Rebbi Judah ben Rebbi Abun said, because usually a woman does not sit aimlessly in her house¹⁵⁷. Rav Huna said, even if she brought him 100 slave girls, he can force her to serve him with particular attention¹⁵⁸. What are services with particular attention? She rubs his body, washes his feet, and mixes him the cup¹⁵⁹. Why? Because she is obligated to do that, or because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these¹⁶⁰? If you say because it is not appropriate to use a slave girl for these, here she brought him slaves¹⁶¹! It must be because she is obligated to do that. Rebbi Eudaimon in Sepphoris asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it not reasonable because she is obligated to do that? He said to him, that is what I am always thinking.

footnotes: ¹⁵² If her dowry is large enough to pay for a slave girl. In the Babli, 61a, this is a statement of R. Samuel ben Naḥmani. ¹⁵³ This clause is also in the Babli (48a, 61a). It means that if the material circumstances of the husband improve, he has to provide for his wife according to his social standing; but if he loses money, he cannot reduce her standard of living below the level he provided for her at the time of the wedding. ¹⁵⁴ They are supported from the estate and only have a claim to the lesser amount of the yield of the estate at the time of the husband’s death or now. If the heirs improve the yield of the estate, the improvement is theirs (assuming zero inflation). Similarly, the claim of the daughters to a dowry is limited to 10% of the estate at the time of the father’s death. ¹⁵⁵ The standard contract for journeymen stipulates that the employer must feed the workers (Mishnah Baba ¹⁵⁶ That she should not be overworked. It is difficult to see why the slave girl should be overworked with three types of work but the wife not with seven. In the Babli, 61a, this question is asked and the answer is that the slave girl also has to care for guests. ¹⁵⁷ The other things, except grinding flour, baking, and washing, the wife does anyhow. ¹⁵⁸ A similar statement is in the Babli, 61a. ¹⁵⁹ In the Babli, “she mixes his cup, makes his bed, and washes his face and feet.” ¹⁶⁰ These are intimate services; if a slave girl would perform those, the husband would start to sleep with her. ¹⁶¹ The Mishnah does not mention that she could have brought a male slave as dowry who could serve as the husband’s valet, to free the wife from personal services.

It was stated so: He forces her to work¹⁶² with wool, but not with flax since that causes bad breath and broadens the lips¹⁶³ 1:5, it is stated in more general terms: He can force her to work with wool but not anything else (unless stipulated otherwise in the marriage contract) since the terms of a contractual relationship cannot be changed unilaterally. For the damage that spinning flax does to the lips, cf. the Brothers Grimm’s fairy tale, die drei Spinnerinnen..

footnotes: ¹⁶² Following R. Eliezer. ¹⁶³ In Baba Meṣi‘a

MISHNAH: If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse, the House of Shammai say two weeks, the House of Hillel say one week¹⁶⁵.. Students can go to study Torah for thirty days without permission¹⁶⁶; journeymen one week¹⁶⁷. The period mentioned in the Torah¹⁶⁸ 21:10, where it is spelled out that a man can take a second wife only if he does not reduce the amount of sexual activity with his first wife.: People who do not have to work every day¹⁶⁹, journeymen twice a week, donkey drivers once a week, camel drivers once in thirty days, sailors once in three months, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ If he does not have his vow dissolved by that time, the wife can go to court and force a divorce with full payment of the ketubah ¹⁶⁶ Without asking his wife’s permission if she married him knowing he was a student. ¹⁶⁷ They can hire themselves out to work at another place where they cannot return to their homes every night. ¹⁶⁸ Ex. ¹⁶⁹ If a man marries a woman telling her that he is rich enough not to have to work, he is obligated to sleep with her every night and cannot later reduce this amount without the wife’s consent. Similarly, a donkey driver engaged in local traffic, who is home every week, cannot change his profession to camel driver engaged in long distance caravan traffic without his wife’s consent.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse,” etc. ¹⁷⁰ The House of Shammai say, two weeks as after the birth of a girl¹⁷¹ 12:5. Since this is a normal occurrence in a marriage, the wife can be assumed to be able to live for two weeks without intercourse.. But the House of Hillel say one¹⁷² week, as after the birth of a boy¹⁷³ 12:2. or the days of her menstruation¹⁷⁴ 12:2, 15:19. Since a forced abstinence of seven days is routine in the marriage, it is reasonable to ask the wife to wait for 7 days before giving her the right to sue in court (the Babli’s interpretation of the House of Hillel, 61b)..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ Tosephta 5:6. ¹⁷¹ After the birth of a girl, the mother is forbidden intercourse for two weeks, Lev. ¹⁷² The masculine אֶחָד refers to שָׁבוּעַ “week”, the intended meaning of שַׁבָּת in this context. ¹⁷³ Lev. ¹⁷⁴ Lev.

“Students can go to study Torah for thirty days without their wives’¹⁷⁵ permission.” Therefore, with permission even longer¹⁷⁶. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “He sent them to the Libanon, ten thousand per month.¹⁷⁷ 5:28.” Rebbi Abin said, the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred being fruitful and multiplying over the Temple. What is the reason? “One month they would be in Libanon, two months each in his house.”¹⁷⁸ Rav said, “the one entering and the one leaving, month for month for all months of the year.¹⁷⁹ 27:1, speaking of all watches in the service of the king. The interpretation is that each watch served for six months each year, one month at a time. Rav will require a student to spend only one month with his wife for every month away. In the Babli, R. Joḥanan rejects this argument since the king’s servants were well paid and absences for money-making purposes follow different rules.”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ Addition to the Mishnah text. ¹⁷⁶ The Babli agrees, 61b/62a. ¹⁷⁷ 1K. ¹⁷⁸ The Babli, 62a, is explicit that R. Joḥanan requires a student who leaves his house for study to make up for it and spend double the time with his wife. ¹⁷⁹ 1Chr.

Here you say, one week. But there, you say, twice a week¹⁸⁰. Bar Qappara stated: “Journeymen can hire themselves out without their wives’ permission for one week.”¹⁸¹

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ The Mishnah permits journeymen to absent themselves for one week but requires them to sleep with their wives twice a week. How can the two statements be reconciled? ¹⁸¹ The agreement of the wife is taken for granted since she also lives off her husband’s earnings. But if he is at home, she has the right to expect that he sleep with her twice a week.

”The period mentioned in the Torah.” ¹⁸².Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 259), the first opinion is attributed to Rebbi, the second to R. Joshia; the explanation attributed here to R. Eliezer ben Jacob is there in the name of R. Jonathan. In the Babli, 47b, the first opinion is attributed to R. Eleazar or R. Eliezer, the second is anonymous; the midrash of R. Eliezer ben Jacob is given in his name, 48a. Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai follows the attributions of the Yerushalmi (pp. 167–168). Some Tannaïm state¹⁸³ 21:9 which states that a man who takes an additional wife may not diminish שְׁאֵר, כְּסוּת, and עֹנָה of his first wife. The meaning of כְּסוּת “garment, covering” is clear but the meaning of the other two words is a matter of controversy. שְׁאֵר means “flesh” but, as the verses quoted in support of different meanings show, it means both “meat” and “relative, one’s flesh and blood.” Note also in Accadic šērum “flesh”, š’r (of a different etymology) “to go towards; to have sexual relations”. The root שאר II has no connection with the usual שאר “to remain, be a remainder” (Arabic سار.). The problem with עֹנָה is that the verb ענה “to humiliate, inflict pain” in sexual context always means “to rape, to have forced intercourse” but in the verse here it has a positive meaning, the intercourse to which the wife is entitled. [Note that in Arabic, عنا means both “produce plants” (said of the earth) and “to be humiliated, captive” (from this العَوَانِي “Moslem women”).] From the positive meaning of עֹנָה in the verse comes the rabbinic-modern Hebrew עוֹנָה “season”, used in the midrash of R. Eliezer ben Jacob.: שְׁאֵר that is intercourse; עוֹנָה that is food. Some Tannaïm state: עוֹנָה that is intercourse; שְׁאֵר that is food. He who said שְׁאֵר is intercourse: “No person to the שְׁאֵר of his flesh;¹⁸⁴ 18:6: “No person to the שְׁאֵר of his flesh should come close, to uncover nakedness.”” עוֹנָה is food: “He fed you and made you hunger¹⁸⁵ 8:3, usually translated as: “He chastised you and made you hunger before He fed you with the manna that neither you nor your fathers knew.””. He who said שְׁאֵר is food: “He let rain on them שְׁאֵר like dust¹⁸⁶ 78:27.”; עוֹנָה that is intercourse, “that you should not deprive my daughters,¹⁸⁷. 31:50. “That you should not deprive my daughters nor take wives in addition to my daughters.” In Gen. rabba 74(12), this verse is explained that (a) Bilha and Silpa also were Laban’s daughters from slave women and (b) that Laban made Jacob swear that he would not deprive his daughters of intercourse during their lifetime nor take additional wives after their deaths.” that refers to intercourse. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob explains the verse¹⁸⁸ 21:9 as exhortation rather than prescription, reading “her flesh, her garment, and her season he should not diminish”., “her flesh her garment”, that her garment should fit her flesh, that he should not give a young woman clothes of an old woman nor an old woman clothes of a young one. “Her garment her season”, that he should not give summer clothing for the rainy season nor that for the rainy season in summer. From where does he get food¹⁸⁹? Since he is not permitted to withhold from her things that are not necessities of life¹⁹⁰, not so much more things that are necessities of life! From where does he get the obligation of periodic intercourse? Since he may not withhold from her things which do not constitute the main reason for marriage¹⁹⁰, so certainly he may not withhold the things which constitute the main reason for marriage!

footnotes: ¹⁸² In Mekhilta dR ¹⁸³ The problem is Ex. ¹⁸⁴ Lev. ¹⁸⁵ Deut. ¹⁸⁶ Ps. ¹⁸⁷ Gen ¹⁸⁸ He denies that there is a biblical command which fixes minimal amounts of sexual attention due wives. He explains Ex. ¹⁸⁹ How can he establish an obligation of the husband to feed his wife? ¹⁹⁰ A new garment at least twice a year. ¹⁹⁰ A new garment at least twice a year.

Rebbi Eliezer¹⁹¹ 76(6); it is reproduced in Rashi’s Commentary to Gen. 32:15–16. inferred from the gift which Jacob had sent to his brother Esaw, for he sent him according to copulations. “200 she-goats and 20 he-goats,” one for ten; “200 ewes and 20 rams,” one for ten¹⁹². “Nursing camels and their sons 30.” Rebbi Berekhiah said, because it is decent in his sexual behavior did the verse not publicize¹⁹³.rabba 76(6), R. Berekhiah in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel implies that 30 males (בנאים “builders”) accompanied the 30 females.. “40 cows and ten bulls,” one for four since they are tired¹⁹⁴; “20 she-donkeys and ten he-donkeys,” one for two since they are tired.

footnotes: ¹⁹¹ His list of prescribed minimal frequencies of intercourse is based on the occupation of the male. The same argument is given in Gen. rabba ¹⁹² One male can satisfy 10 females since it has nothing to do except grazing and copulating. ¹⁹³ In Gen ¹⁹⁴ Cattle was used extensively for ploughing and drawing agricultural implements.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is it reasonable to consider scholars like those who do not work? Rebbi Mana said, would it not be more reasonable to compare them to sailors¹⁹⁶ since they exert themselves harder? Rav said, “she eats with him every Friday night”¹⁹⁷, in clean language¹⁹⁸. 39:6, *Prov.*30:20..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ Who have to sleep with their wives only once every six months. ¹⁹⁷ Mishnah 5:13. A man who does not live with his wife but supports her financially through an intermediary nevertheless has to sleep with her every Friday night (unless he actually is away as in the cases enumerated in the Mishnah). Therefore, the scholar has to sleep with his wife at least every Friday night. ¹⁹⁸ “Eating” is a common metaphor for sexual relations; cf. Gen

MISHNAH: If a woman revolts¹⁹⁹ against her husband, one²⁰⁰ reduces her ketubah by seven denars a week; Rebbi Jehudah says, by seven tropaïkes²⁰¹.) The name τροπαϊκόν was given to coins depicting a trophy (τροπαίον); in the Roman Empire it was identified with the victoriatus(nummus), a small silver coin stamped with the image of Victoria, goddess of victory; declared by Varro to be equal to the quinarius argenteus, one-half of a denarius argenteus. This is the meaning used here.. For how long does one reduce? Up to the amount of her ketubah²⁰².. Rebbi Yose says, he continues to reduce²⁰³, for maybe an inheritance will come to her from outside and he would be able to collect from it. Similarly, if the husband revolts against his wife, one adds to her ketubah three denars a week; Rebbi Jehudah says three tropaїkes.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ While one could read the Mishnah as speaking of a woman refusing any of the work enumerated in Mishnah 6, from the Halakhah it seems that one speaks only of a woman refusing sexual relations with her husband. (This remains a matter of dispute in the Babli, 63a/b.) ²⁰⁰ The court, following the husband’s complaint. ²⁰¹ Late classical Greek τροπαϊκόν, τό, “a half denarius” defined in the Babli (64a) as στατήρ (name introduced by Alexander the Great for a gold coin but used in later antiquity for silver didrachmas of varying standards, i. e„ half a sela ²⁰² Then the court will force the husband to divorce his wife without payment of a ketubah ²⁰³ The husband cannot be forced to divorce his wife.

HALAKHAH: “For how long does one reduce? Up to the amount of her ketubah”, etc. ²⁰⁴.rabba 52(13), with most of the attribution of names omitted. Here you say seven, and there you say three? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, since she is obligated for seven²⁰⁵, he deducts seven; he, since he is obligated for three²⁰⁶ 21:9, whatever they mean., has to add three. Think of it, if she brought him slaves, she is not obligated for anything! Think of it, if he stipulated [that he is not obligated for] either šĕ‘ēr, or dress, or ‘onāh²⁰⁷ פוחתין, as the opinion of the Yerushalmi. Tosaphot do not attribute the statement to R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina, even though the latter is also quoted in the Babli, 63a, representing the opinion that “revolting” refers to any of the mutual obligations in marriage). One must agree that the Mishnah speaks only of the case that one partner refuses sexual activity with the other. The Babli leaves the question open as to which interpretation is the correct one., he is not obligated for anything! What is it? Following Rebbi Joḥanan, that the suffering of the male²⁰⁸ is greater than that of the female. That is what is written²⁰⁹ 16:16, speaking of Delilah and Simson.: “It was when she had nagged him day after day and pressured him.” What means “and pressured him”? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar²¹⁰ 9b, in a slightly more graphic description, “R.Isaac in the name of Rebbi Ammi” or something similar. said, that she slipped away from under him. “He felt badly, to die”. He felt badly, ready to die, but she did not feel badly, to die. But some say that she fulfilled her needs with others. So much more she should have wanted²¹¹ 107a) in the name of R. Jehudah., since Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Naḥman: This human limb, if you starved it you satisfied it, if you satisfied it you starved it.

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ A shortened version of the paragraph is in Gen ²⁰⁵ The 7 types of work enumerated in Mishnah 6. ²⁰⁶ The obligations enumerated in Ex. ²⁰⁷ While in general we hold (following R. Jehudah) that in money matters biblical rules are only default options which can be changed or eliminated by contract, in non-monetary matters one usually holds that biblical rules are prescriptive and cannot be abolished. The Yerushalmi here considers sexual intercourse a money matter since the Mishnah gives monetary value to the refusal of intercourse. This argument, which is against all principles of the Babli in the usual rabbinic interpretation, will be important for the last statement of the Halakhah.In any case, the arguments given here show that the explanation cannot be the correct one (even though it is quoted by Tosaphot, 63a s. v. ²⁰⁸ If deprived of sexual fulfillment. ²⁰⁹ Jud. ²¹⁰ In the Babli, Soṭah ²¹¹ This is a rather weak argument, that Delilah could not have slept with other men since then she would also have wanted to sleep more with Simson, in view of the enormous sum of money promised her by the Philistine princes. The argument of R. Naḥman in the name of a different R. Naḥman is in the Babli (Sanhedrin

Following Rebbi Eliezer²¹², how far can he deduct? Let us hear from the following²¹³: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One writes a bill of rebellion for the husband²¹⁴ of a preliminarily married woman²¹⁵, or a sick one, a menstruating woman or one who is waiting for her levir. Where do we hold? If she rebelled against him when she was having her period, the Torah made her rebel against him²¹⁶ 18:19.! But we must hold that she rebelled against him before she had her period and now she has it. At that moment she would not be able to rebel but you say one writes, therefore one also deducts²¹⁷. From where does one deduct? From the additions to her ketubah²¹⁸ (cf. Mishnah 6:3). In this opinion, one forces the husband to divorce his wife after the additions to the dowry were written down.. Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose says, he continues to reduce, for maybe an inheritance will come to her from outside and he would be able to collect from it.” He mentioned only inheritance, which is infrequent. That means he deducts from the additions to he ketubah. ²¹⁹ Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Samuel: One writes a bill of rebellion for a preliminarily married woman, but one does not write a bill of rebellion for one who is waiting for her levir²²⁰ and leave the family.. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state that one writes a bill of rebellion on the ketubah of a menstruating woman or a sick one, a preliminarily married woman or one who is waiting for her levir? There, according to the first Mishnah, here according to the later Mishnah²²¹ 1:7, that in earlier times levirate marriage was preferred over ḥalîṣah, so that the woman refusing her levir was inflicting pain on him, but today ḥalîṣah is preferred and in refusing her levir the woman is acting correctly. Cf. Yebamot12:7, Note 140.. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, even if you say according to the later Mishnah, ²²²”the later Court [instituted that] one warns her for four weeks, then she writes a receipt for her ketubah and leaves²²³.”

footnotes: ²¹² who in the Mishnah held the wife of a sailor to one sex act every six months. If she refuses sex with her husband, does she lose 7 denars every week or every six months? ²¹³ In a somewhat different formulation, Tosephta 5:7, Babli 63a, 64a. ²¹⁴ The expression על בעלה is uncommon. Although it can be explained as “for her husband’s benefit”, probably it is a copyist’s error for על כתובתה mentioned in the quote of the Tosephta later in this paragraph. ²¹⁵ Who now is forbidden to sleep with her husband but who made it clear that she will refuse sex with him when definitely married. The Babli, 63a, explains that she is inflicting pain on the husband since “one cannot compare one who has bread in his basket to one who has no bread in his basket”, i. e., one who is assured of a sexual partner after time. The same argument is to be assumed for the woman being temporarily disabled by her period. ²¹⁶ Since sexual relations with her are forbidden, Lev. ²¹⁷ Therefore, the sailor’s wife loses money every week, not every three months. ²¹⁸ Greek τά παράφερνα, “additions to the dowry which the bride brings”. This corresponds to תּוֹסֶפֶת כְּתוּבָּה, the amounts the husband promises his wife for her dowry over and above the legal minimum of 200/100 zuz ²¹⁹ From here on, a parallel but different text is in the Babli, 64a. ²²⁰ Since she always can receive ḥalîṣah ²²¹ Mishnah Bekhorot ²²² Different formulations in Tosephta 5:6, Babli 63b. ²²³ I e., she confirms in writing that her former husband does not owe her any money; then she can claim a bill of divorce from him.

Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: A wife who leaves because of a bad reputation²²⁴ since he can produce evidence of unfaithfulness of his wife even though it does not add up to formal legal proof (which could be produced only by the testimony of two eye witnesses to the illicit copulation.) has no rags²²⁵ document as monetary obligation of the husband. If the divorce is for cause, the husband does not have to pay. It is stated here that in this case, even if the garments still exist at the time of the divorce, the divorcee cannot take them; they remain the husband’s property. The Babli, 101b, emphatically disagrees.; the rebellious one has rags. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The rebellious one and the one who leaves because of a bad reputation can claim neither sustenance nor rags.

footnotes: ²²⁴ A woman whom her husband divorces without paying the ketubah ²²⁵ If the value of the garments she brought into the marriage was determined and written into the ketubah

²²⁶ Tel-Aviv and New York 1980, vol. 1, Chapter V,A: The Wife’s Right to Demand Termination of the Marriage, pp. 312–346. The stipulation referred to is quoted in part in Halakhah 7:7, Note 96. The full text has been recovered by Friedman (loc. cit., pp. 328–329) from Geniza ketubot: “If X, the groom, hates this Y, does not desire her, and wants to separate from her, he shall pay all that is written and specified in this marriage contract, completely. And if this Y hates this X, her husband, and desires to leave his home, she shall lose her ketubah money, and she shall not take anything but only that which she brought from her father’s house and she shall go out by the mouth of the court (עַל פֻּם בֵּית דִּינָה) and with the consent of our masters, the Sages.” The sentence about the husband hating his wife does not bring anything new. The sentence about the wife hating the husband states first that the husband does not have to pay the promised ketubah sum, then that she takes the rags with her (following R. Ismael ben R. Yose in the preceding paragraph), and, finally, that she is to be divorced “by the mouth of the court,” i. e., that the court will direct the husband to divorce his wife. Even though biblical law, as interpreted by all Jewish sects, does grant the husband the exclusive power to divorce, to the exclusion of any right of the wife to force a divorce, R. Yose (the Amora) holds that if the divorce is forced as consequence of a monetary settlement, the stipulation regards monetary, not religious, obligations and is enforceable in court. The essence of this prenuptial agreement, which allows a woman to buy her freedom from an intolerable marriage, was adopted in Babylonia by the Saboraim Rav Rabba and Mar Rav Huna as a taqqanah, a rabbinic ordinance, which instructed the husband to divorce his rebellious wife while granting him the monetary advantages of the Yerushalmi agreement. This ordinance was in fact disestablished by R. Asher ben Ieḥiel, Rosh, in the 14th Century, when he interpreted the rule as a recommendation, not obligatory on the husband. Cf. I. Szczepansky, The Takkanot of Israel, Jerusalem-New York; Vol. 3, Chapter 13 (1992) (Hebrew). The dependency of the Saboraïm on the Yerushalmi is studied by Dr. Eliahu Raḥamim Ziani, רבנן סבוראי וכללי ההלכה, Haifa 1992. Rebbi Yose said: Those who write: “If he hates, if she hates”, that is a monetary condition and these conditions are valid²²⁷ 19b. In the Yerushalmi it is a generally accepted principle transmitted anonymously: Below 9:1 (32d 1. 51); Baba meṣi‘a 7:10 (11c 1. 11), Baba batra8:6 (16b 1. 28), 8:8 (16c 1. 37)..

footnotes: ²²⁶ This sentence has been discussed in great detail by M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, A Cairo Geniza Study, ²²⁷ In the Babli, this is asserted as R. Jehudah’s opinion: Qiddušin

MISHNAH: If somebody provides for his wife through a third party, he cannot give her less that two qab²²⁸ about 2.17 liters. One speaks here of grain, delivered per week. of wheat or four qab of barley. Rebbi Yose said, only Rebbi Ismael assigned her barley, becaused he lived in proximity of Idumea²²⁹.

footnotes: ²²⁸ One sixth of a seah, ²²⁹ The Babli, 64b, reads this sentence as meaning that only R. Ismael requires that the quantity of barley be double that of wheat. There is no reason to assume this interpretation for the Yerushalmi; it seems that R. Yose forbids a husband to give his wife barley except in regions in which wheat is not cultivated.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody provides for his wife through a third party,” etc. What is “in proximity of Idumea”? In the South²³⁰ cf. Kilaim, Chapter 6, Note 42. Idumea in Second Temple times was the Negev..

footnotes: ²³⁰ It is known that R. Ismael, the student of R. Joshua, lived in the South but it is not known what the definition of “South” is, whether in the mountains South of Hebron or in the Southern plain near Ascalon. He probably did not live in Kefar Aziz,

MISHNAH: One gives her half a qab of legumes²³¹ and half a qab of oil²³², a qab of dried figs or a mina²³³ as a weight is 60 šeqel. of fig cake; if there are none available one finds her fruit from other places. Also one gives her a bed and a mat; if he has no bed, a mat and a rug²³⁴. Also, one gives her a cap for her head²³⁵ and a belt for her loins, and shoes every holiday, and garments worth 50 tetradrachmas every year. One does not give her new ones in the summer or worn ones in the winter, but one gives her garments worth 50 tetradrachmas in the winter and she covers herself with the worn garments²³⁶ in the summer; and the rags are hers²³⁷.

footnotes: ²³¹ Peas or beans. ²³² Olive oil. ²³³ The mina ²³⁴ To sleep on it. ²³⁵ Since a married woman may not be seen in public without a bonnet on her head. Bed, mat, cap, and belt are once-a-lifetime gifts. ²³⁶ Which in the meantime became summer weights by constant use. ²³⁷ The husband has no right to require her to hand over last year’s used garments before giving her the new ones.

HALAKHAH: “One gives her half a qab of legumes and half a qab of oil,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, a mina, i. e. four riṭl²³⁸ are. It is the consensus of the linguists that Syriac raṭl, Arabic roṭi, with the derived verb rṭl “to weigh by hand” is simply Greek λίτρα, a Roman pound of 12 oz. This also is Musaphia’s explanation of riṭl’, but a mina of 60 seqalim is about 2 librae. (In modern times, the weight of a roṭi varied from .45 kg in Egypt to 3.2 kg in Syria.) R. Mana states that the mina used here is 4 Roman 1bs., 1.38 kg, or 100 “holy” šeqel. The translation follows S. Lieberman [Tarbiz 4 (1933), p. 377–378] who identifies וּ as shorthand for הוּא “this is”.. He gives her a pillow, a light²³⁹ and wick, and an amphora, and a pot. Rebbi Yose said, she has no right to a pillow since the wives of poor men do not sleep on a pillow²⁴⁰. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If she left over from her food, it is hers, if she left over rags they are his - if she left over rags they are hers²⁴¹. That is, of a married woman. But for a widow, both her leftover food and her leftover rags are hers²⁴².

footnotes: ²³⁸ It is not known what these riṭl ²³⁹ A small clay vessel to be filled with oil. ²⁴⁰ Since the rules given here have to be generally valid, only the minimum amounts can be prescribed; the remainder is a matter of private contract between husband and wife. The rule is a matter of dispute in the Babli, 65a. ²⁴¹ The text is unclear here between the scribe and the first corrector. The next sentence shows that both possibilities are valid; it was a matter of dispute between schools which alternative was chosen. The Babli disagrees with all the rules spelled out here, 65b. ²⁴² Anything given by the heirs to the widow becomes the latter’s unconditional property.

MISHNAH: One gives her a silver obolus for her needs and she eats with him Friday nights¹⁹⁸. 39:6, *Prov.*30:20.. If he does not give her a silver obolus for her needs, she works for herself. And what does she work for him? In Judea, a weight of five tetradrachmas warp²⁴³, which is ten tetradrachmas in Galilee, or in Judea the weight of ten tetradrachmas woof which are twenty tetradrachmas in Galilee. If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food. When has this been said²⁴⁴? For the poorest man in Israel. But for the most honored one, everything commensurable with his honor²⁴⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ “Eating” is a common metaphor for sexual relations; cf. Gen ²⁴³ She spins. The warp, being fixed under tension in the weaving frame, has to be spun much tighter than the woof. ²⁴⁴ For whom are the amounts mentioned in Mishnaiot 11–13 binding? ²⁴⁵ The wife would have standing in court if she complains about being treated shabbily.

HALAKHAH: “One gives her a silver obolus for her needs and she eats with him every Friday night,” etc. The matters are formulated in clean language²⁴⁶ erroneously: Rav Ashi).. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Really eating²⁴⁷. In the opinion of Rav, she eats at his expense²⁴⁸; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan she eats at her own expense.

footnotes: ²⁴⁶ This is the opinion of Rav at the end of Halakhah 8, Note 198. In the Babli, 65b, it is attributed to Rav Assi, the colleague of Rav (in many mss. and the editto princeps ²⁴⁷ In the Babli, this opinion is attributed to Rav Naḥman, Samuel’s student. ²⁴⁸ Since “eating” is meant as an euphemism for sexual intercourse, it implies in the context that she does not eat Friday nights from the food allotted her during the week.

She has no claim to wine since poor Jewish women do not drink wine²⁴⁹. Do rich women drink? Did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Martha bat Boethos²⁵⁰ 6:4, Note 75. two se‘ah of wine every day. How can the court assign wine²⁵¹? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because of “Whoring, wine, and cider will destroy the mind.²⁵² 4:11. It is inferred that drinking wine induces sexual desires.” But did we not state: ”If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said wine, for it increases the milk²⁵³. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also²⁵⁴ they assigned it for cooking²⁵⁵. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen²⁵⁶. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation²⁵⁷ if I did not see her collecting barley grains between horses’ hooves at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …²⁵⁸ 28:56, the chapter of curses.” “If you have no experience, most beautiful of women, go following the flock …²⁵⁹ 1:8. This verse has a positive interpretation in all Midrash sources.”. But did we not state²⁶⁰ 6:4, Note 75; Josephus Antiquities xv. 320 ff. In the Babli, 65a and 66b/67a (for the second story, Tosephta 5:9–10), both stories refer to one person, the widowed daughter-in-law of one Nikodaimon ben Gorion waiting for her levir; in the second story (in an intended contrast to the Yerushalmi) it is emphasized that nobody said “amen”, (because the unhappiness of a childless widow cannot be compensated with money.): It happened that the Sages assigned to Miryam, the daughter of Simeon ben Gorion, a daily supply of perfume for 500 denar, when she was only waiting for her levir. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her bound with her hair to a horse’s tail at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …”.

footnotes: ²⁴⁹ And the rules are written only for the poor; Tosephta 5:8; Babli 64b. ²⁵⁰ The paradigm of a rich widow; cf. Yebamot ²⁵¹ Let a woman drink wine in the absence of a husband. The Babli, 65a, approves of not more than one cup of wine per meal. ²⁵² Hosea ²⁵³ The same statement is in the Babli, 65b. ²⁵⁴ The original scribe wrote אין which by the first corrector was changed into אף. One has to assume that the scribe intended אִין, Babylonian Aramaic “yes”; in a Yerushalmi text this is a corruption. ²⁵⁵ If her food was cooked with wine there was no problem since cooking eliminates the alcohol. ²⁵⁶ As confirmation. ²⁵⁷ Being part of an oath formula, the positive has a negative implication and vice versa. The implication is that the speaker would give up his share of paradise if what he says is not true. ²⁵⁸ Deut. ²⁵⁹ Cant. ²⁶⁰ The reliability of the tradition about Martha bat Boethos is questioned since a parallel tradition is reported about another woman. But it seems that both traditions are one and that Martha (“the lady”) bat (“of the family of”) Boethos is Miryam bat Simeon ben Boethos, cf. Yebamot