a gambler1 the sale is still valid.2 What else is there?3 [Only that the slave might be found to have been] an armed robber or one proscribed by the government;4 but such characters are generally known.5
Consider! Whether according to the [explanation of the one] Master6 or according to that of the other Master7 she8 is not permitted to eat [terumah], what then is the practical difference between them? — The difference between them [is the case where her intended husband] accepted [her defects,9 or where her father] delivered [her to the intended husband's agents]10 or went11 [with them].10
R. TARFON SAID: ALL [THE SUSTENANCE] FOR SUCH A WOMAN MAY BE GIVEN OF TERUMAH etc. Abaye stated: The dispute12 applies only to the daughter of a priest13 who was betrothed to a priest but with respect to the daughter of an Israelite14 who was betrothed to a priest all15 agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food16 and one half of terumah.
Abaye further stated: Their dispute12 relates to one who17 was only betrothed,18 but in respect of a married woman19 all15 agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food20 and one half of terumah.20 So it was also taught: R. Tarfon said, All [the sustenance] for such a woman is given of terumah. R. Akiba said, One half of consecrated food and one half of terumah — This21 applies only to the daughter of a priest who was betrothed to a priest, but with respect to the daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest all22 agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food and one half of terumah. This,21 furthermore, applies only to one who23 was only betrothed but in respect of a married woman24 all22 agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food25 and one half of terumah.25 R. Judah b. Bathyra said, She is supplied with two thirds26 of terumah and one third of unconsecrated food. R. Judah said, All [her sustenance] is given to her in terumah27 and she sells it and purchases unconsecrated food out of the proceeds.28 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, Wherever terumah was mentioned29 [the woman] is to be given [a supply equal to] twice the quantity of unconsecrated victuals.30 What is the practical difference between them?31 — The difference between them [is the question of the woman's] trouble.32
A LEVIR [WHO IS A PRIEST] DOES NOT CONFER [UPON HIS SISTER-IN-LAW] THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH. What is the reason? — The All-Merciful said, The purchase of his money33 while she is the purchase of his brother.34
IF SHE HAD SPENT SIX MONTHS WITH HER HUSBAND. Now that you stated [that even if she spent the full twelve months less one day] WITH THE HUSBAND [she is] not [permitted to eat terumah] is there any need [to mention also] WITH THE LEVIR?35 — This is a case36 [of anti-climax:]
'This, and there is no need to say that'.37 THIS [WAS THE RULING ACCORDING TO] AN EARLIER MISHNAH etc. What is the reason?38 — 'Ulla, or some say R. Samuel b. Judah, replied: Owing to a bodily defect [that might subsequently be detected].39 According to 'Ulla40 one can well understand [the respective rulings of the earlier,41 and the later rulings],42 the former41 being due to the possibility that a cup [of terumah] might be offered43 to her in the house of her father,44 and the latter to [the possibility of] the detection of a bodily defect.45
According to R. Samuel b. Judah, however, the earlier [ruling of the] Mishnah is due to [the possible detection of] a bodily defect and the later is also due to [the possible detection of] a bodily defect, what then is [the reason for] their difference? — [The principle underlying] the difference is the [efficacy of an] examination by outsiders. One Master1 is of the opinion that an examination by others2 is regarded as effective,3 while the other Master4 holds the opinion that an examination by others is not regarded as effective.5
MISHNAH. IF A MAN CONSECRATED HIS WIFE'S HANDIWORK,6 SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO WORK AND TO CONSUME [THE PROCEEDS HERSELF].7 [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS8 [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.9 R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR RULED: IT REMAINS UNCONSECRATED.9
GEMARA. R. Huna stated in the name of Rab:10 A woman is entitled to say to her husband, 'I do not wish either to be maintained by you or to work for you'. He holds the opinion that when the Rabbis regulated [the relations of husband and wife] her maintenance was fundamental11 while [the assignment of the proceeds of] her handiwork [to her husband] was due [only to their desire for preventing] ill-feeling.12 If, therefore, she said, 'I do not wish either to be maintained by you or to work for you', she is entitled to do so.13
An objection was raised: Maintenance [for a wife] was provided in return for her handiwork!14 — Read: Her handiwork was assigned [to her husband] in return for her maintenance.
May it be suggested that [our Mishnah] provides support for his15 view? [It stated,] IF A MAN CONSECRATED HIS WIFE'S HANDIWORK SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO WORK AND TO CONSUME [THE PROCEEDS HERSELF]. Does not [this refer to a wife for whom her husband is able16 to] provide maintenance?17 — No; [it is a case where the husband is unable to] provide her maintenance. If, however, [her husband is unable to] provide her maintenance, what need was there to state [such an obvious case]?18 Even according to him who holds that a master has the right to say to his slave, 'Work for me but I will not maintain you,'19 such a rule applies only to a Canaanite slave concerning whom Scripture has not written 'with thee', but not to a Hebrew slave concerning whom it is written in Scripture. With thee,20 how much less then [would this apply to] his wife?21 — It22 was necessary [as an introduction to] the final clause: [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.23 R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR RULED: IT REMAINS UNCONSECRATED.
Now [R. Huna's ruling] is in disagreement with that of Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish stated: You must not assume that R. Meir's reason24 is because he is of the opinion that a man may consecrate that which has not yet come into existence25 but this is R. Meir's reason: Since [a husband] has the right to compel her to work, his consecration is regarded as if he had said to her, 'May your hands26 be consecrated to Him who created them'. But, surely, he27 did not use such an expression!28 — Since R. Meir was heard to state that a man does not utter his words to no purpose,29 [the expression the husband used here]30 may be regarded as if he had actually said to her, 'May your hands be consecrated to Him who created them'. But is R. Meir of the opinion that a man cannot consecrate anything that is not yet in existence? Surely it was taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Be thou betrothed unto me after I shall have become a proselyte' or 'After thou shalt have become a proselyte'. 'After I shall have been set free', 'After thou shalt have been set free', 'After thy husband will have died', 'After thy sister will have died', or 'After thy brother-in-law shall have submitted to halizah31 from thee', she, R. Meir ruled, is legally betrothed!32 — From that [Baraitha] the inference33 may indeed be drawn;34 from this, [our Mishnah], however, it cannot be inferred.35
[IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED. When does it become consecrated? — Both Rab and Samuel stated: The surplus becomes consecrated only after [the wife's] death.36 R. Adda b. Ahabah stated: The surplus is consecrated while she is still alive.37 [In considering this statement] R. Papa argued: In what circumstances?38 If it be suggested: Where [the husband] allows her maintenance39 and also allows her40 a silver ma'ah41 for her other requirements,42 what [it may be retorted] is the reason of those who stated that it 'becomes consecrated only after [the wife's] death'?43 If, however, it is a case where [the husband] does not allow her maintenance and does not allow her a silver ma'ah for her other requirements, what [it may be objected] is the reason of him who stated that 'it is consecrated while she is still alive'? — This is a case indeed44 where he does allow her maintenance; but does not allow her a silver ma'ah for her other requirements. Rab and Samuel are of the opinion that [the Rabbis] have ordained
- To Next Folio -