POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kesuvos 59
1) THE ENACTMENT OF FEEDING ONE'S WIFE
(a) Rav holds, food was enacted corresponding to earnings;
money for other needs, corresponding to extra earnings.
2) A VOW ON SOMETHING NOT YET IN THE WORLD
1. Since he is not paying for her other needs, the
extra earnings are not his.
(b) Rav Ada holds, food was enacted corresponding to extra
earnings; money for other needs, corresponding to
1. Since he is feeding her, the extra earnings are his.
(c) Question: On what do they argue?
(d) Answer: Rav holds, we enacted what is common in return
for what is common; Rav Ada holds, we enacted what is
fixed for what is fixed.
(e) Question (Beraisa): Food was enacted in return for
(f) Answer: Say, in return for extra earnings.
(g) (Mishnah): If he does not give her money for extra
expenses, she keeps her earnings. (This is as Rav Ada)!
1. (This is no proof) - say, she keeps her extra
2. Question: But a Beraisa clarifies this Mishnah, 'How
much must she work? She must spin 5 Sela'im
(according to the weights used in Yehudah) of
3. Answer: The Beraisa teaches how much she must work,
so we will know what is considered extra; the
standard is 5 Sela'im of Yehudah, which are as 10 of
(a) (Shmuel): The law is as R. Yochanan ha'Sandler.
(b) Question: Did Shmuel really say that?
1. (Mishnah): (A woman vows) 'What my hands produce is
Konam (forbidden as a sacrifice) to your mouth' -
the husband need not annul the vow (it is null
(c) Answer #1: Shmuel only said the law is as R. Yochanan Ben
Nuri (that the vow should be annulled because it forbids)
2. R. Akiva says, he should annul it, perhaps she will
3. R. Yochanan Ben Nuri says, he should annul it,
perhaps he will divorce her, and will not be allowed
to remarry her.
i. (Shmuel): The law is as R. Yochanan Ben Nuri.
(He says the vow takes effect on what is not
yet in the world - unlike R. Yochanan
(d) Objection: If so, Shmuel should say, the law is as R.
Yochanan Ben Nuri regarding extra earnings!
1. Or, he should say, the law is unlike the 1st Tana!
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): One cannot ask a question from
Konamos to Hekdesh - Konamos are different!
2. Or, he should say, the law is as R. Akiva!
1. Since a person can forbid his friend's property on
himself via Konam, he can also forbid something
which is not yet in the world.
(f) Objection (Abaye): I agree, a person can forbid his
friend's property on himself via Konam, since he can
forbid his property on his friend;
1. Should we say, a person can forbid something not in
the world on his friend - a person cannot forbid his
friend's property on his friend!
(g) Answer #3 (Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The case is,
she said 'My hands are sanctified to their Maker' - her
hands are in the world.
(h) Question: When she says this, do they become sanctified?
They are obligated to work for the husband!
(i) Answer: She said, 'when I will be divorced'.
(j) Question: Do we ever find, something does not become
sanctified now, and it is sanctified later?
(k) Answer #1 (R. Ilai): Yes! One who says, this field that I
sell to you should be Hekdesh when I buy it back!
1. Objection (R. Yirmeyah): The comparison is faulty!
There, he can sanctify it now (before selling it);
the wife cannot!
2. (R. Yirmeyah): Our case resembles one who says,
'This field that I *sold* to you should be Hekdesh
when I buy it back' - it does not become Hekdesh!
3. Objection (Rav Papa): The comparison is faulty!
There, the buyer owns the field itself and its
produce; in our case, the wife owns her hands!
(l) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We find such a case - one who says
'This field I mortgaged to you (gave as collateral for a
loan, to eat its fruit until the loan is repaid) should
be Hekdesh when I redeem it' - the field becomes Hekdesh!
3) WORK A WIFE MUST DO FOR HER HUSBAND
1. Objection (Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi): The
comparison is faulty! There, he can redeem the
field; the wife cannot divorce herself!
(m) Answer #3 (Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi): We find such a
case - one who says 'This field I mortgaged to you for 10
years should be Hekdesh when I redeem it' - the field
1. Objection (Rav Ashi): The comparison is faulty!
There, he can redeem the field after 10 years; a
wife can never divorce herself!
(n) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): One cannot ask a question from
Konamos - they are different, they are as something
sanctified for Temple service, as Rava taught.
1. (Rava): Sanctifying, the prohibition of Chametz, and
freeing a slave uproot liens.
(o) Question: If so, her earnings should become forbidden
(p) Answer: Chachamim strengthened the lien of a husband, so
it does not become Hekdesh now.
(a) (Mishnah): A wife must grind, bake, launder, cook, nurse
her son, spread his bedsheet, and spin wool;
1. If she brought a slave into the marriage, she is
exempted from grinding, baking and laundering;
(b) (Gemara) Question: Does the Mishnah really mean that she
grinds (the water turns the grinder)!
2. If she brought 2 slaves, she is also exempted from
cooking and nursing;
3. If she brought 3 slaves, she is also exempted from
making his bed and spinning wool;
4. If she brought 4 slaves, she sits in a comfortable
chair; R. Eliezer says, even if she brings 100
slaves, he forces her to work, since idleness breeds
lewdness; R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, even one who
forbids his wife from working through a vow, must
divorce her and pay a Kesuvah, for idleness leads to
(c) Answer #1: Rather, she makes the preparations for
(d) Answer #2: She grinds using a hand-mill.
(e) Our Mishnah is unlike R. Chiya.
1. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): A wife is only for beauty, and
for having and raising children.
(f) (Mishnah): She must nurse her son ...
2. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): A wife is only for adornment.
3. (Beraisa - R. Chiya): One who wants to make his wife
radiant should clothe her in linen; one who wants to
whiten his daughter should feed her chicks and give
her milk to drink before she becomes a Na'arah.
(g) Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai.
1. (Beraisa): A wife that vowed not to nurse her son -
Beis Shamai says, she may not nurse him; Beis Hillel
says, her husband can force her to nurse him;
(h) Rejection: The Mishnah can even be as Beis Shamai - the
case is, she vowed and he confirmed the vow.
2. If he divorces her, he cannot force her; if the baby
recognizes his mother, he pays her wages (for
nursing) and she must nurse him, because of the
1. Beis Shamai holds, he put the finger between her
teeth (he is responsible for the vow - therefore, it
can uproot her obligation to him); Beis Hillel says,
she put the finger between her teeth (so it cannot
uproot her obligation to him).
(i) Question: If so, they should argue more directly, if he
must pay a Kesuvah (when he confirmed a vow which
obligates him to divorce her).
(j) Answer: True! Rather, the Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai.
(k) (Mishnah): If the baby recognizes the mother ...