Torah Community Connections

Week 62 - Shabbat - 3 February 2001

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 4

If one consecrates his wife's handiwork, she works and eats. The surplus -- Rabbi Meir says, It is consecrated. Rabbi Yohanan HaSandlar says, It is hullin.

Kehati

The law associates the husband's obligation to provide his wife's maintenance with his right to her handiwork. There is a disagreement, however, whether the husband's obligation for maintenance is primary and his wife's handiwork was awarded to him in exchange for his maintenance, or whether her handiwork is primary, and his maintenance was given in exchange. The law is that the husband's obligation fro his wife's maintenance is primary. This is derived from the passage, "her food [she'erah], her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish" (Ex. 21:10). The Sages interpreted that she'erah refers to her maintenance, and enacted that her handiwork be given in exchange of maintenance, i.e., the proceeds of her handiwork to the husband in return for the maintenance he provides for her (see Bartenura and Tosefot Yom Tov). The Sages determined (5:9 below) "What must she do for him? (i.e., how much is her handiwork?) -- "the weight of five selas etc." Hence her handiwork which exceeds five selas is considered surplus. This also belongs to the husband in exchange for the additional ma'ah of silver which he gives her each week for household expenses (mishnah 9, below)

. Seeing that the maintenance is primary, and the Sages enacted that in return she gives him her handiwork, a woman may say, "I do not want your support, and I will not work for you," i.e., she may forgo her maintenance, and keep her handiwork.

If one -- a husband, consecrates his wife's handiwork -- by saying, "my wife's handiwork shall be consecrated to the Temple," and, as the Gemara explains, the wife says, "I do not want your support and I will not work for you" she works and eats -- supports herself because it is not within the husband's authority to consecrate his wife's handiwork. The surplus -- the Gemara treats this as a case where the husband "provides his wife with maintenance, but not with the ma'ah of silver for her needs," in which case the surplus of her handiwork belongs to her and not to her husband, and if he says, "the surplus of my wife's handiwork shall be consecrated," though during her lifetime the surplus does not become consecrated, since it does not belong to him; but after his wife's death, the husband inherits her property, including the surplus.

Rabbi Meir says, -- his consecration is valid because "a person may consecrate something which does not yet exist" and it is consecrated -- even though the surplus of her handiwork "did not exist" (i.e., it did not yet belong to him) at the time of consecration, it becomes consecrated. Rabbi Yohanan HaSandlar says, It -- the surplus that he inherited from his wife, is hulin -- non-consecrated -- and not Temple property, for a person may not consecrate something which does not yet exist. The mishnah brought the dispute regarding work surplus to teach Rabbi Meir's opinion that even the surplus is consecrated. Similarly, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yohanan HaSandlar disagree in the case of a husband who consecrates his wife's handiwork. The halakhah follows Rabbi Yohanan HaSandlar.

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 5

These are the tasks that the wife performs for her husband: she grinds, and bakes, and launders; cooks, and nurses her child; she makes his bed, and works in wool. If she brought him one bondwoman -- she need not grind, or bake, or launder; two -- she need neither cook, nor nurse her child; three -- she need not make his bed, nor work in wool; four -- she sits in a soft seat. Rabbi Eliezer says, Even if she brought him one hundred bondwomen, he compels her to work in wool, for idleness leads to unchaste behaviour. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, Even if one prohibits his wife by vow from doing work -- he must divorce her and give her her ketubah, for idleness leads to dullness.

Kehati

The previous mishnah having taught that the wife's handiwork belongs to her husband, our mishnah lists the tasks which the wife is obligated to perform for her husband. The commentators explain that the mishnah only enumerates seven major types of work; minor tasks, e.g., filling his cup, etc. are self-evident and it is unnecessary to mention them (Shitah Mekubetzet).

These are the tasks that the wife performs for her husband -- for the household: she grinds -- with a small hand mill, or she prepares the grain for grinding in a large mill, and bakes -- bread, and launders -- clothes; cooks -- his meals, and nurses her child -- but not his child by another wife (Rabbeinu Asher; Rabbeinu Nissim); she makes his bed -- with pillows and cushions, and works in wool -- according to the amounts stated in mishnah 9, below. If she -- his wife brought him -- from her father's house -- one bondwoman -- or a dowry with which to acquire one bondwoman, she need not grind, or bake, or launder -- but rather the bondwoman performs these tasks because they involve a considerable effort; if she brought him two bondwomen -- she need neither cook, nor nurse her child -- in addition to the above-mentioned tasks which she need not perform; if she brought him three bondwomen -- she need not make his bed, nor work in wool -- i.e., she need not perform any of the seven tasks enumerated in the mishnah, but she does not do even minor chores. The Gemara explains that nevertheless there are tasks which every wife does for her husband out of affection, such as filling his cup (Ket. 61a).

Rabbi Eliezer says, Even if she brought him one hundred bondwomen, he compels her to work in wool -- a specific type of craft reserved for women, so that she will not sit idle, for idleness leads to unchaste behaviour.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, Even if one prohibits his wife by vow from doing work -- he vows that he will not derive benefit from work done by his wife he must divorce her and give her her ketubah -- he is obligated to divorce her and pay her the money of her ketubah, for idleness leads to dullness -- to insanity (Rashi).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives