איתמר אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל משום רבי שמעון בן אלעזר חכמים תקנו להם לבנות ישראל לבתולה מאתים ולאלמנה מנה והם האמינוהו שאם אמר פתח פתוח מצאתי נאמן א"כ מה הועילו חכמים בתקנתם אמר רבא חזקה אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה תנא הואיל וקנס חכמים הוא לא תגבה אלא מן הזיבורית קנסא מאי קנסא אלא אימא הואיל ותקנת חכמים הוא לא תגבה אלא מן הזיבורית רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כתובת אשה מן התורה ומי אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הכי והתניא (שמות כב, טז) כסף ישקול כמוהר הבתולות שיהא זה כמוהר הבתולות ומוהר הבתולות כזה מכאן סמכו חכמים לכתובת אשה מן התורה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כתובת אשה אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים איפוך ומאי חזית דאפכת בתרייתא איפוך קמייתא הא שמעינא ליה לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר כתובת אשה מדאורייתא דתנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא ואי בעית אימא כולה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מכאן סמכו חכמים לכתובת אשה מן התורה כתובת אלמנה אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים שרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כתובת אלמנה אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה פתח פתוח מצאתי אמר ליה רב נחמן אסבוהו כופרי מברכתא חביטא ליה והא רב נחמן הוא דאמר מהימן מהימן ומסבינן ליה כופרי רב אחאי משני כאן בבחור כאן בנשוי ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבן גמליאל אמר ליה פתח פתוח מצאתי אמר ליה שמא הטיתה אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שהיה מהלך באישון לילה ואפילה היטה מצאו פתוח לא היטה מצאו נעול איכא דאמרי הכי אמר ליה שמא במזיד הטיתה ועקרת לדשא ועברא אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שהוא מהלך באישון לילה ואפילה היטה במזיד מצאו פתוח לא היטה במזיד מצאו נעול ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבן גמליאל בר רבי אמר ליה רבי בעלתי ולא מצאתי דם אמרה לו רבי בתולה הייתי אמר להם הביאו לי אותו סודר הביאו לו הסודר ושראו במים וכבסו ומצא עליו כמה טיפי דמים אמר לו לך זכה במקחך אמר ליה הונא מר בריה דרבא מפרזקיא לרב אשי אנן נמי נעביד הכי אמר ליה
§ It was stated: Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: The Sages instituted the marriage contract for Jewish women: For a virgin two hundred dinars and for a widow one hundred dinars. And they deemed the groom credible in that if he says with regard to his virgin bride: I encountered an unobstructed orifice and she is not a virgin, he is deemed credible, causing her to lose her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: If so, and the Sages deemed him credible, what did the Sages accomplish in their ordinance that the marriage contract of a virgin is two hundred dinars, if his claim that she is not a virgin is effective? Rava said: The ordinance is effective due to the presumption that a person does not exert himself to prepare a wedding feast and then cause it to be lost. Investing in the wedding preparations clearly indicates that the groom’s intention is to marry the bride and rejoice with her. If, nevertheless, he claims that she is not a virgin, apparently he is telling the truth. § A Sage taught in a baraita: Since payment of the marriage contract is a penalty instituted by the Sages, she may collect only from the husband’s land of the most inferior quality. The Gemara asks: A penalty? What penalty is there in a marriage contract? Rather, emend the baraita and say: Since it is a rabbinic ordinance and not a Torah obligation, she may collect only from the husband’s land of the most inferior quality. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The marriage contract of a woman is an obligation by Torah law. The Gemara asks: And did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say that? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to a seducer: “He shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (Exodus 22:16)? The Torah establishes that this fine will be like the dowry of a virgin, and that the dowry of a virgin will be like this fine, i.e., fifty silver sela, or two hundred dinars. From here the Sages based their determination that a woman’s marriage contract is an obligation by Torah law. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The marriage contract of a woman is not an obligation by Torah law, but is by rabbinic law. The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Reverse the attribution of opinions in this baraita. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the attribution of opinions in the latter baraita? Reverse the attribution of opinions in the former, in the baraita, and say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the one who holds that the marriage contract is a rabbinic ordinance. The Gemara answers: The reason is that we learned that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who said elsewhere that the marriage contract of a woman is an obligation by Torah law, as we learned in a mishna (110b) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if a man marries a woman in Cappadocia, where the currency is more valuable, and he divorces her in Eretz Yisrael, he gives her payment for the marriage contract from the money of Cappadocia. From the fact that he is obligated to pay the marriage contract in the currency of the place where he undertook the obligation, apparently the marriage contract of a woman is an obligation by Torah law. And if you wish, say instead that the entire latter baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but the baraita is incomplete and it is teaching the following: From here, the Sages based their determination that a woman’s marriage contract in the case of a virgin is an obligation by Torah law. However, the marriage contract of a widow is not an obligation by Torah law but is an ordinance by rabbinic law, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The marriage contract of a widow is not an obligation by Torah law but is an ordinance by rabbinic law. § The Gemara relates: A certain man who had never been married came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice when I consummated the marriage. Rav Naḥman said in his regard: Flog him with palm branches [kufrei]; prostitutes [mevarakhta] are common around him. As he was never previously married, how was he able to determine whether or not the orifice was unobstructed, if he did not gain experience with prostitutes? The Gemara asks: But isn’t Rav Naḥman he who said that he is deemed credible when he claims that he encountered an unobstructed orifice? The Gemara answers: Yes, he is deemed credible, and nevertheless, we flog him with palm branches. Rav Aḥai answered: Here, in the case where he is flogged, it is with regard to a bachelor, who is not accorded credibility, because he lacks experience. There, in the case where he is accorded credibility, it is with regard to one who has been married. The Gemara relates a similar incident from an earlier era: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Perhaps you diverted your approach and therefore, you encountered no obstruction? I will tell you a parable to which this is similar. It is similar to a man who was walking in the blackness of night and darkness and he arrived at the entrance to the house; if he diverts the object preventing the door from opening, he finds it open; if he does not divert it, he finds it locked. Perhaps you too diverted your approach and entered from a different angle and that is why you did not encounter an obstruction. Some say this is what Rabban Gamliel said to him: Maybe you diverted your approach intentionally and you displaced the door and the bolt. I will tell you a parable to which this is similar. It is similar to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and darkness and he arrives at his entrance. If he diverts intentionally, he finds it open; if he does not divert intentionally, he finds it locked. The Gemara relates: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. The bride said to him: My teacher, I was a virgin. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Bring me that cloth [sudar] on which you consummated the marriage. They brought him the cloth, and he soaked it in water and laundered it and found upon it several drops of blood from the rupture of the hymen. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the groom: Go take possession of your acquisition, as she was a virgin and there is no need for concern. Huna Mar, son of Rava, from Parzakya, said to Rav Ashi: Let us do so as well in similar cases and examine whether there is blood that is obscured by semen or another substance. Rav Ashi said to him:
(ז) וְצָרִיךְ לִכְתֹּב כְּתֻבָּה קֹדֶם כְּנִיסָה לַחֻפָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר הַסּוֹפֵר. וְכַמָּה הוּא כּוֹתֵב לָהּ. אִם הָיְתָה בְּתוּלָה אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לָהּ פָּחוֹת מִמָּאתַיִם דִּינָרִים וְאִם בְּעוּלָה אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לָהּ פָּחוֹת מִמֵּאָה דִּינָרִים [ד.] וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא עִקַּר כְּתֻבָּה. וְאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ אֲפִלּוּ כִּכַּר זָהָב מוֹסִיף. וְדִין הַתּוֹסֶפֶת וְדִין הָעִקָּר אֶחָד הוּא לְרֹב הַדְּבָרִים. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ כְּתֻבָּה סְתָם הוּא הָעִקָּר וְהַתּוֹסֶפֶת כְּאֶחָד. וַחֲכָמִים הֵם שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ כְּתֻבָּה לָאִשָּׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ:
האי תנא שליח ערטלאי ורמי מסאני אמר ליה תנא במקום הרים קאי דלא סגיא בלא תלתא זוגי מסאני ואגב אורחיה קא משמע לן דניתבינהו ניהלה במועד כי היכי דניהוי לה שמחה בגוייהו: וכלים של חמשים זוז: אמר אביי חמשים זוזי פשיטי ממאי מדקתני במה דברים אמורים בעני שבישראל אבל במכובד הכל לפי כבודו ואי ס"ד חמשים זוז ממש עני חמשים זוז מנא ליה אלא ש"מ חמשים זוזי פשיטי: ואין נותנין לה לא חדשים וכו': ת"ר מותר מזונות לבעל מותר בלאות לאשה מותר בלאות לאשה למה לה אמר רחבה שמתכסה בהן בימי נדתה כדי שלא תתגנה על בעלה אמר אביי נקטינן מותר בלאות אלמנה ליורשיו התם הוא דלא תתגני באפיה הכא תתגני ותתגני: נותן לה מעה כסף וכו': מאי אוכלת רב נחמן אמר אוכלת ממש רב אשי אמר תשמיש תנן אוכלת עמו לילי שבת בשלמא למ"ד אכילה היינו דקתני אוכלת אלא למאן דאמר תשמיש מאי אוכלת לישנא מעליא כדכתיב (משלי ל, כ) אכלה ומחתה פיה ואמרה לא פעלתי און מיתיבי רשב"ג אומר אוכלת בלילי שבת ושבת בשלמא למ"ד אכילה היינו דקתני ושבת אלא למאן דאמר תשמיש תשמיש בשבת מי איכא והאמר רב הונא ישראל קדושים הן ואין משמשין מטותיהן ביום האמר רבא בבית אפל מותר: ואם היתה מניקה: דרש רבי עולא רבה אפיתחא דבי נשיאה אע"פ שאמרו אין אדם זן את בניו ובנותיו כשהן קטנים אבל זן קטני קטנים עד כמה עד בן שש כדרב אסי דאמר רב אסי קטן בן שש יוצא בעירוב אמו ממאי מדקתני היתה מניקה פוחתין לה ממעשה ידיה ומוסיפין לה על מזונותיה מ"ט לאו משום דבעי למיכל בהדה ודלמא משום דחולה היא אם כן ליתני אם היתה חולה מאי אם היתה מניקה ודלמא הא קא משמע לן דסתם מניקות חולות נינהו איתמר אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מוסיפין לה יין שהיין יפה לחלב:
הדרן עלך אף על פי
מתני׳ מציאת האשה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה וירושתה הוא אוכל פירות בחייה בושתה ופגמה שלה רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר בזמן שבסתר לה שני חלקים ולו אחד ובזמן שבגלוי לו שני חלקים ולה אחד שלו ינתן מיד ושלה ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות: גמ׳ מאי קא משמע לן תנינא האב זכאי בבתו בקידושיה בכסף בשטר ובביאה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה מקבל את גיטה ואינו אוכל פירות בחייה נישאת יתר עליו הבעל שהוא אוכל פירות בחייה בושתה ופגמה איצטריכא ליה פלוגתא דרבי יהודה בן בתירא ורבנן: תני תנא קמיה דרבא מציאת האשה לעצמה רבי עקיבא אומר לבעלה אמר ליה השתא ומה העדפה
הדרן עלך אף על פי
מתני׳ מציאת האשה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה וירושתה הוא אוכל פירות בחייה בושתה ופגמה שלה רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר בזמן שבסתר לה שני חלקים ולו אחד ובזמן שבגלוי לו שני חלקים ולה אחד שלו ינתן מיד ושלה ילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות: גמ׳ מאי קא משמע לן תנינא האב זכאי בבתו בקידושיה בכסף בשטר ובביאה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה מקבל את גיטה ואינו אוכל פירות בחייה נישאת יתר עליו הבעל שהוא אוכל פירות בחייה בושתה ופגמה איצטריכא ליה פלוגתא דרבי יהודה בן בתירא ורבנן: תני תנא קמיה דרבא מציאת האשה לעצמה רבי עקיבא אומר לבעלה אמר ליה השתא ומה העדפה
This tanna creates a bizarre situation in which the woman is left naked but wearing shoes, as the husband must give his wife shoes three times a year but new clothing only once a year. Abaye said to him: The tanna is standing, i.e., speaking of, a mountainous region, in which she cannot do without three pairs of shoes, as shoes wear out quickly in hilly areas. And in passing, the tanna teaches us that he should give them to her on a Festival, so that she will rejoice in them during the Festival. § The mishna teaches: And he must give her clothes with a value of fifty dinars. Abaye said: This is referring to fifty simple [peshitei] dinars, used as the money of the state, which are worth only one-eighth of Tyrian dinars. From where did Abaye derive this? From the fact that it teaches: In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to the poorest of Jews. However, in the case of a prominent man, all the amounts are increased in accordance with his prominence. And if it enters your mind that the mishna means literally fifty dinars, from where would such a poor man get fifty dinars? How could a pauper afford to give such a large sum to his wife for her clothing? Rather, learn from this that the mishna is referring to fifty simple dinars. § The mishna further states: And he may not give her new clothes in the summer, nor worn garments in the rainy season, and the leftover, worn clothes belong to her. The Sages taught: Leftover sustenance belongs to the husband, whereas leftover, worn clothes belong to the wife. The Gemara asks: With regard to the statement that worn clothes belong to the wife, why does she need these old clothes? Raḥava said: She requires them, as she covers herself with them during her days of menstruation, so that she does not become repulsive to her husband. If she wears her normal clothes when she is menstruating, he will later be disgusted by her. Abaye said: We have a tradition that the leftover, worn clothes of a widow belong to the husband’s heirs. The reason is that it is only in that case there, concerning a woman whose husband is alive, that the reasoning so that she does not become repulsive to her husband can be applied. Whereas here, when he is dead, let her become repulsive. There is no need to ensure that she find favor in the eyes of his heirs. § The mishna teaches that he gives her a silver ma’a, and she eats with him from one Shabbat evening to the next. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: She eats, in this context? Rav Naḥman said: It means literally that she eats with him once a week. Rav Ashi said: This is referring to sexual relations. The mishna states: And she eats with him from Shabbat evening to Shabbat evening. Granted, according to the one who says that it means actual eating, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: She eats. However, according to the one who says that it is referring to sexual relations, what is the meaning of: She eats? The Gemara explains: It is a euphemism, as it is written: “So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says: I have done no wickedness” (Proverbs 30:20). The Gemara raises an objection: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, disagreeing with the tanna of the mishna: She eats on Shabbat evening and on Shabbat. Granted, according to the one who says that it means actual eating, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: And Shabbat, i.e., she dines with him also on the day of Shabbat. However, according to the one who says that it is referring to sexual relations, are there sexual relations on the day of Shabbat? But didn’t Rav Huna say: The Jewish people are holy and therefore do not engage in sexual relations during the day? The Gemara answers that Rava said: If they are in a dark house, it is permitted to engage in relations even during the day. § The mishna teaches: And if she is nursing, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. Rabbi Ulla the Great taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi: Although the Sages said that a person is not obligated to sustain his sons and daughters when they are young, still, he must sustain the very young ones. The Gemara asks: Until when are they considered very young? Until the age of six, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said: A six-year-old minor may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv, if she prepared an eiruv on one side of the city. He is included in his mother’s eiruv rather than that of his father, as he is considered subordinate to his mother. The Gemara asks: From where is this halakha that Rabbi Ulla taught derived? The Gemara explains that it is derived from the fact that it teaches: If she is nursing, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. What is the reason for this? Is it not because the baby needs to eat together with her? This shows that a father is responsible to provide for his young child. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps he increases her sustenance not due to the baby but because she is considered ill due to her weakness while nursing, in which case the obligation stems from his obligation to his wife, not to his child. The Gemara retorts: If so, let the mishna teach: If she was ill. What is the reason that it specifies: If she was nursing? The reason for this halakha must certainly be due to the child. The Gemara again rejects this answer: But perhaps the mishna teaches us this, that in an ordinary situation, nursing women are considered ill, and that a husband must increase the sustenance all the more so if his wife is actually ill. Consequently, this does not prove that a father is obligated to sustain his very young child. It was stated that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Wine is added for a nursing woman, as wine is good for milk. May we return to you chapter “Even though.” MISHNA: A lost object found by a wife and the wife’s earnings belong to her husband. And with regard to her inheritance, the husband enjoys the profits of this property in her lifetime. If she is humiliated or injured, the perpetrator is liable to pay compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as relevant. This payment belongs to her. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When it is an injury that is in a concealed part of the woman’s body, she receives two parts, i.e., two-thirds, of the payment for humiliation and degradation, and the husband receives one part, i.e., one-third, as the injury affects him as well. And when it is an injury that is in an exposed part of her body, he receives two parts, as he suffers public humiliation due to her condition, and she receives one part. His payment should be given to him immediately. And with her portion, land should be purchased with it, and he enjoys the profits of that property. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (46b) that the father is entitled, in the case of his daughter, to authority over her betrothal, whether it is effected with money, with a document, or through sexual intercourse. Furthermore, as long as she is single, her father is entitled to any lost object that she finds, and to her earnings, and to effect nullification of her vows (see Numbers, chapter 30). Her father also receives her bill of divorce on her behalf, but he does not enjoy the profits of her property in her lifetime. If she is married, the rights of the husband are greater than his, as the husband enjoys the profits of her property in her lifetime. What, then, is the mishna teaching beyond that which was taught elsewhere? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the halakhot concerning compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as ownership of these payments is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis. § A tanna teaches a baraita before Rava: A lost object found by a wife belongs to her; Rabbi Akiva says it belongs to her husband. Rava said to that tanna: This baraita is puzzling. Now, if, with regard to the surplus of the wife’s earnings beyond the minimum sum stipulated by the Sages,
(י) אִם־אַחֶ֖רֶת יִֽקַּֽח־ל֑וֹ שְׁאֵרָ֛הּ כְּסוּתָ֥הּ וְעֹנָתָ֖הּ לֹ֥א יִגְרָֽע׃ (יא) וְאִם־שְׁלָ֨שׁ־אֵ֔לֶּה לֹ֥א יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה לָ֑הּ וְיָצְאָ֥ה חִנָּ֖ם אֵ֥ין כָּֽסֶף׃ (ס)
(10) If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. (11) If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment.