The Eri B. Sitt Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, presents Massechet Ketubot, which has been dedicated by our dear friend Mr. Elliot Shasho. May God preserve him and grant him long life. May the merit of the study of Massechet Ketubot stand for him. With God’s help, may this year be a good and blessed year for him, with wealth, happiness, honor, peace in his home, and continued success as a supporter of Torah and all holy projects. Amen.
Today’s page has also been dedicated by Mr. Victor Gindi, for continued success in all his endeavors, continued success in business, good health, happiness, and all good things. Amen.
We begin on page 62b, four lines from the bottom. The Gemara continues to relate episodes about the Sages who devoted themselves to Torah study.
Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of Ben Kalba Savua, one of the wealthy men of Jerusalem. He was called Kalba Savua because anyone who entered his house hungry like a dog, a kalba, left his house satiated, savua. He was an exceptionally wealthy man, and Rabbi Akiva worked for him.
Kalba Savua had a daughter named Rachel. She saw qualities in Rabbi Akiva. Although he was an unlearned man at that time, she recognized that he possessed a certain modesty and refinement of character.
There is a teaching in Massechet Pesachim concerning a person who hated Torah scholars. He would say, “If only I could find a Torah scholar, I would bite him like a donkey bites.” The comparison is to a donkey biting a bone. This was not a refined person.
Why did he hate Torah scholars? He felt that the rabbis were arrogant toward the unlearned because of their Torah. He believed that they considered ordinary people impure and would not allow them to touch them. He therefore thought, “They are so arrogant. They will not even allow us to touch them, because if we touch them, we are considered impure.”
This man was not religious. He was not necessarily opposed to the Torah itself; rather, he felt that the Torah scholars displayed arrogance and acted as though they were superior. That was why he said that he disliked them. Yet Rabbi Akiva himself possessed good character traits, and Rachel saw that within him.
Rachel said to Rabbi Akiva, “If I marry you, will you go to the yeshiva and study?”
He answered, “Yes, I will.”
She became betrothed to him discreetly, because her father would never have accepted such a match. She then sent Rabbi Akiva to the yeshiva.
When her father heard about the marriage, he expelled her from his house. He banished her from deriving any benefit from his estate or assets. She was not to receive anything from his inheritance.
Rabbi Akiva then remained in the yeshiva for twelve years. At the end of those twelve years, he returned with twelve thousand students. As he approached home, he heard an old man speaking with his wife. The old man said to Rabbi Akiva’s wife, “How long will you continue to be treated like a living widow? Your husband is alive, but you are living as though you were a widow.”
She answered, “If my husband would listen to me, I would give him another twelve years to study.”
Rabbi Akiva heard this and said, in effect, “I have just received permission for another twelve years.” He immediately turned around and returned to the yeshiva.
Rav Chaim Shmulevitz asked: Rabbi Akiva had already received permission to study for another twelve years. Why did he not go home and at least say hello to his wife? He could have gone in, greeted her, and then returned to the yeshiva. She was not going to withdraw her permission.
Rav Chaim Shmulevitz gave a very sharp answer: twelve plus twelve is not twenty-four.
What does that mean? Twenty-four consecutive years of Torah study cannot be compared with twelve years, an interruption, and then another twelve years. The interruption itself is a break. In order to succeed in Torah study, there must be continuity and momentum.
He gave the famous analogy of someone trying to boil water. One places the water on the fire, and just as it is about to boil, one removes it. Then one puts it back on the fire and removes it again. Unless the water remains on the fire for a sustained period, it will never reach its boiling point.
The same is true of Torah study. In order to succeed, one needs Torah without interruption, with constant growth and continuity. Twelve plus twelve is not twenty-four. The study must be continuous.
A proof is brought from Abraham our forefather. After the binding of Isaac, the Torah says that Abraham returned alone. The question is: where was Isaac?
The answer is that Isaac had been sent to study in the yeshiva of Shem and Ever. But this raises another question. Isaac had just passed the hardest test of his life. Why did he not first go home, take a short vacation, rest, and collect himself? Why was he sent immediately to the yeshiva?
The explanation is that there should be no interruption. Isaac had just come from the binding of Isaac, and he was on a very high spiritual level. His momentum was extremely strong. Why stop then and go home for two days to rest? It was better to take advantage of that momentum and send him immediately to the yeshiva so that he could continue to grow.
Rav Chaim Shmulevitz explained that this is why Rabbi Akiva did not return home. Even though he could have gone home and returned to the yeshiva the next morning, it would not have been the same. Twelve plus twelve is not twenty-four. The study must be continuous.
After the second twelve years, Rabbi Akiva returned with twenty-four thousand students. His wife heard that he was coming and went out to greet him.
The neighbors told her, “Go borrow some nice clothes. You have not seen your husband in twenty-four years. Borrow something respectable from the neighbors so that you can greet him properly.”
She replied, “It is all right. The righteous man knows his wife.” In other words, he knew that she had no money and did not expect her to have anything extra or fancy. He would recognize her as she was and accept her as she was.
When she came before Rabbi Akiva, she bowed before him and fell at his feet. She began kissing his feet. Rabbi Akiva’s servants tried to push her away. They saw a woman bowing before the rabbi and said, “Move away. Leave him alone.”
Rabbi Akiva said to them, “Leave her alone. My Torah and your Torah are hers.” All the Torah that we have is credited to her. Without her sacrifice and encouragement, Rabbi Akiva would not have become Rabbi Akiva.
Kalba Savua heard that a great rabbi had come to town. He did not know that the rabbi was his son-in-law. He said, “Let me go see the great rabbi. Perhaps he will be able to release me from my vow.” He regretted the vow he had made when he expelled his daughter and denied her any benefit from his property. Since his daughter had no livelihood, he thought that perhaps this rabbi could find a way to annul the vow.
Kalba Savua came before Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva asked him, “If you had known that your son-in-law would become a great man, would you have made the vow?”
Kalba Savua answered, “Even if I had known that he would learn one chapter, or even one halakhah, I would not have made the vow.”
Rabbi Akiva then revealed, “I am your son-in-law, Rabbi Akiva.” Kalba Savua fell at his feet and kissed his feet. He gave Rabbi Akiva half of his estate.
Rabbi Akiva’s wife did the same thing when she married Ben Azzai. She followed the example of her mother and allowed Ben Azzai to go study in the yeshiva for twenty-four years.
The Gemara says that this is reflected in a popular saying: “A lamb follows a lamb.” The younger sheep follows the mother sheep. Children follow their parents. She had been raised in a home in which her mother had made tremendous sacrifices for Torah and had encouraged her husband to study for years at a time. When she married Ben Azzai, she followed the same example as her mother.
Rav Yosef, the son of Rabbah, was sent by his father to study with Rav Yosef. The arrangement was that he would study for six years. After three years, on the eve of Yom Kippur, he came home.
Rabbah saw him and said, “What are you doing here?” Rav Yosef answered, “I want to go visit my wife and family.”
Rabbah took up his weapons, as though he were preparing for a confrontation. “What are you doing coming here?” he asked. “You were supposed to remain in the yeshiva for six years. Why have you come home now?”
There is a different version of the text brought by the Ein Yaakov. According to that version, Rabbah said to him, “You remembered your wife? You remembered your dove?” The dove is an analogy for marriage. Rabbah was telling him that he had left the yeshiva because his desire for his wife had overcome him.
Neither of them had time to eat the pre-Yom Kippur meal. They became involved in this disagreement, and they were so occupied with the argument that they entered Yom Kippur without eating the meal beforehand.
It should be noted that the fact that Rav Yosef came home on the eve of Yom Kippur does not necessarily mean that he came home for marital relations, because relations are prohibited on Yom Kippur. Nevertheless, Rabbah maintained that he had come home because his desire for his wife had overcome him. He was supposed to be studying Torah, and Rabbah therefore criticized him.
Rashi explains the earlier part of the account first. Rabbah took up his weapons because he was prepared to fight with him. He viewed Rav Yosef’s return as a serious breach of the agreement.
We now come to the next Mishnah. It discusses a woman who is rebellious against her husband. As long as she remains in that state of rebellion, seven dinarim are deducted from her marriage settlement each week, meaning one dinar per day.
Rabbi Yehuda says that a different type of coin is involved. The question is: how long does the deduction continue? It continues until the entire amount of her marriage settlement has been reduced to zero. As we learned earlier, this includes not only the basic marriage settlement but also the additional amount that the husband accepted upon himself.
After the marriage settlement has been reduced to zero, he gives her a bill of divorce, and she leaves without the marriage settlement. However, the property that entered the marriage with her, or property that later fell to her as an inheritance, remains hers. For example, if her grandfather gave her assets for her own use, those assets belong to her, and she receives them.
Rabbi Yosei says that the deductions continue even after the marriage settlement has reached zero. The reason is that if she later inherits additional money, and that money belongs to the husband, he has a credit against it. Therefore, he continues subtracting the weekly amount.
There is a textual discussion about whether the word “until” should be included. If the wording means that the deductions continue until she receives more property, then even if she later acquires assets, the husband continues to deduct what she owes him. The basic point is that the process does not necessarily end merely because the original marriage settlement has reached zero.
The Mishnah then discusses the opposite case: the husband rebels against his wife. In that case, three coins are added to her marriage settlement each week. The Gemara will clarify that these are not ordinary dinarim but a different denomination.
The Gemara asks what it means for the woman to be rebellious. Is she withholding marital relations from her husband, or is she refusing to perform household work?
The commentators explain that a woman who refuses to perform work for her husband is not necessarily considered rebellious. Why not? Because she can say that she does not want to receive support from him. If she gives up her support, then the work she performs may remain hers, and she is not required to give the proceeds of her work to him. This is an arrangement between them.
She cannot, however, withhold marital relations in the same way. That is why Rav Huna understands that a rebellious woman is one who withholds marital relations.
What is the other opinion? Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina explains that rebellion refers to household labor. It does not necessarily mean that she refuses to perform productive work; rather, it refers to the obligations that we learned in the previous Mishnah, such as making the bed and performing the various household tasks that a wife is obligated to perform for her husband.
According to this view, when she says, “I am not performing these obligations for you,” she is considered rebellious. The question is whether rebellion means withholding marital relations or refusing to perform household duties.
The Gemara formulates the dispute: Rav Huna says that rebellion refers to marital relations, while Rabbi Yosei understands it as referring to work.
A proof is brought from the Mishnah, which discusses the opposite case, when the husband is rebellious toward his wife. Just as a wife can withhold marital relations from her husband, a husband can rebel by withholding marital relations from his wife.
According to the opinion that rebellion refers to work, however, what work is the husband refusing to perform? Is he obligated to do the work that the wife is refusing to do?
The Gemara answers that the case is one in which the husband says, “I will not support you. I will not provide your food.” A husband is obligated to provide his wife with support. He cannot simply leave her without anything.
She can therefore say, “He receives the proceeds of my work, but I am not giving him those proceeds.” The husband cannot respond that he will provide her with no support at all. Even if she has work income, he must still ensure that she has food to eat.
The law teaches that if a man tells his wife, “I will not support you,” she can be divorced immediately and receive her marriage settlement. If so, the Gemara asks, why does the Mishnah describe a process in which three coins are added to her marriage settlement each week? Why is there not an immediate divorce?
The Gemara answers that there is a period during which an attempt is made to reconcile them. One does not immediately give the divorce. The husband is approached and told to provide her support. The court attempts to restore peace between them.
This process may take several weeks. During that time, the amount of her marriage settlement increases by three coins each week. Thus, it is true that the divorce is not immediate, but there is a period of reconciliation, and she receives the additional amounts during that interim period. If they cannot reconcile, they proceed to divorce.
The Gemara then raises another question. We have a number of cases that appear to have the same law: a woman who is engaged and refuses to marry, a married woman who refuses to remain with her husband, a menstruating woman, a sick woman, and a woman awaiting the fulfillment of the mitzvah of levirate marriage who refuses to undergo that process. All are described as rebellious.
According to the opinion that rebellion refers to withholding marital relations, the case of a sick woman can be understood. Even a sick woman may potentially be capable of marital relations, and she can say that she refuses them.
But what about a menstruating woman? She is not permitted to have marital relations at that time. How can she be considered rebellious for refusing something that is already prohibited?
The Gemara answers that although marital relations are prohibited while she is menstruating, the husband knows that he has “bread in his basket.” He knows that once she is no longer menstruating, marital relations will again be permitted. If she declares that she will not have relations even after she becomes permitted, that is considered rebellion.
According to the opinion that rebellion refers to household work, a different question arises. How can a sick woman be called rebellious for refusing to perform household duties? She is sick. How can one blame her for not serving her husband?
The Gemara therefore revises the explanation of the dispute. Everyone agrees that a woman who withholds marital relations is a classic case of rebellion, and even a sick woman can be considered rebellious in that regard. The earlier teaching is speaking about withholding marital relations.
The dispute concerns a woman who refuses to perform work. Rav Huna says that this is not considered rebellion, because she can say, “I will not work for you, but you should not support me.” Since she can forgo support, she can retain the proceeds of her work. That was Rav Huna’s position.
Rabbi Yosei, however, maintains either that she cannot make such a declaration, or that the proceeds of her work were established by the Sages for the benefit of the husband. Therefore, she cannot simply say that she is withholding those proceeds. When she refuses to provide them, she is considered rebellious.
Alternatively, Rabbi Yosei understands the Mishnah as referring to the household duties themselves. He holds that refusing to perform those duties is sufficient to make her a rebellious wife.
The Gemara continues with the statement of the Mishnah: a woman who rebels against her husband has seven dinarim deducted from her marriage settlement each week. Rabbi Yehuda gives a different denomination, seven coins of another type each week.
The Rabbis later reconsidered the matter and established a different procedure. When a woman is rebellious, the court first announces the matter publicly for four consecutive weeks. The announcement is made in the synagogues, and the court sends her a summons or warning.
She is told that even if her marriage settlement amounts to one hundred maneh, she will lose the entire amount at once if she does not change her conduct. The Rabbis changed the system from a gradual deduction of seven dinarim per week to a four-week process of public announcements. If she remains rebellious after those four weeks, the entire marriage settlement is taken away in one step.
The Gemara states that the law applies to all the cases mentioned: an engaged woman who rebels against her fiancé, a married woman who rebels against her husband, a menstruating woman, a sick woman, and a woman awaiting the fulfillment of the mitzvah of levirate marriage who refuses to undergo it.
Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef asked Rabbi Shmuel about a menstruating woman who is described as rebellious. Earlier we learned that if rebellion refers to marital relations, everyone agrees that it is a case in which she withholds relations. How can a menstruating woman be considered rebellious when she is not permitted to have relations in the first place?
He answered that the cases are not identical. A person who has “bread in his basket” is not like someone who has no bread in his basket. Although there can be no relations while she is menstruating, the husband knows that there is something available to him later, once she becomes permitted. If she refuses even then, she is considered rebellious.
Rashi, in explaining the phrase that the Rabbis reconsidered and established the four-week procedure, says that they did not gradually reduce the marriage settlement by seven coins at a time. Instead, after four weeks of announcements, they removed the entire marriage settlement.
The Gemara derives that the announcements were made in the synagogues and study halls. It says that the period was four Sabbaths, days when people were not occupied with work and everyone was present in synagogues and study halls. The public announcement could therefore reach the community.
Rabbi Chama adds another law concerning this process. The court sends her two warnings. One warning is given before the first public announcement, and another warning is given after the fourth announcement, informing her that she will lose her marriage settlement if she does not change her conduct.
Rav Nachman bar Hachisda said that the law follows the Rabbis. It does not follow the original Mishnah, which described a gradual deduction of seven dinarim per week. Rather, after the four announcements, the entire marriage settlement is taken away at once.
The Gemara then reports that Rava called this ruling a wrongful ruling, meaning that he did not accept it as the correct law. The Gemara asks why Rava rejected the ruling of the Rabbis.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered that he had stated this law before Rav Nachman bar Hachisda and before Rabbi Yosef, great Sages who agreed with it. Since the ruling was supported by great Torah scholars, he maintained that it could not be dismissed as an improper or baseless ruling.
The Gemara then asks: what position did Rava follow? Rava did not accept the view that the entire marriage settlement is lost at once after four weeks. Which opinion did he follow?
We previously learned a statement of Rav Sheshet that when there is an opportunity to reconcile, the court delays the divorce. It does not proceed too quickly. The court prefers to allow time for discussion and reconciliation. This corresponds to the original procedure of deducting seven coins each week, because that gives the woman more time to change her conduct and restore peace.
According to one tradition, Rav Huna bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav Sheshet that the court does not attempt a prolonged reconciliation. It gives the woman four weeks and then removes the marriage settlement immediately.
Thus, there is a dispute about what Rav Sheshet intended. Rava based his ruling on the interpretation that Rav Sheshet favored reconciliation and a slower process. The other tradition understood Rav Sheshet as supporting the four-week procedure followed by the immediate loss of the marriage settlement.
The Gemara now asks what exactly constitutes a rebellious woman in this context. The Mishnah does not explicitly state the precise circumstances, but the same law will apply to her.
The case is one in which she says, “I still want to remain with him, but I want to cause him some pain.” Perhaps she became angry with him over something he did. She is not saying that the marriage is over; she merely wants to hurt him or make him suffer.
In such a case, there is room to give her time. She may calm down, and the court gradually deducts from the marriage settlement each week. Eventually, she may come to her senses and the couple may reconcile.
There is another case, however, in which she says that she does not want her husband and does not want the marriage settlement either. She says, “I simply want to leave. The man is repulsive to me. I cannot remain with him.”
In that case, the Gemara says that the court should not be afraid to grant the divorce. There is no reason to force a woman to remain with a man whom she says is repulsive to her, especially when she is prepared to forfeit her marriage settlement. She is divorced immediately and leaves without the marriage settlement.
The commentators explain that this is what Rashi means when he says that the husband must be compelled. One should never force a woman to remain with a man with whom she cannot live. If the husband is genuinely repulsive to her, the situation will not necessarily change.
It must be pointed out, however, that if she says that her husband is repulsive to her but still demands payment of her marriage settlement, she is not automatically believed. A woman might claim that her husband is repulsive merely because she wants to leave and marry someone else, while still collecting the full marriage settlement.
She is believed when she says, “He is repulsive to me, I cannot remain with him, and I am leaving without demanding the marriage settlement.” But if she says, “He is repulsive to me, I want to leave, and I also want my marriage settlement,” the court does not automatically accept that claim.
The Gemara brings another opinion. Mar Zutra says that if she says, “He is not repulsive to me; I simply do not want to remain,” the court does not delay the process. She can be divorced immediately.
Mar Zutra, however, also presents the opposite view: even in that case, the court attempts reconciliation. It does not immediately give the divorce without the marriage settlement, even if she says that she is willing to forgo the marriage settlement.
The reason is that perhaps she is not sincere when she says that she is willing to forfeit the marriage settlement. Even if she is telling the truth that the man is currently repulsive to her, that does not mean that she will feel the same way the next day. She may want to avoid the reconciliation process, and therefore she may say that she is willing to give up the money.
Let us review the distinctions. There is a case in which she says, “I still want him, but I want to cause him pain.” That is a classic case of rebellion, and the court follows the gradual process.
There is a case in which she says, “He is repulsive to me, and I do not want the marriage settlement.” Some authorities say that she is divorced immediately. Others say that even in that case, the court first attempts reconciliation.
The Gemara tells a story relevant to this dispute. There was a case in which a woman said that her husband was repulsive to her. One authority followed his position and proceeded slowly, rather than forcing the husband to give an immediate divorce.
As a result, something good happened. The couple reconciled, made peace, and had a great righteous child. The Sages teach that if marital relations take place while a couple hates one another, the children may emerge adversely affected. In this case, peace was restored, and the child became a great rabbi. That appeared to demonstrate that the approach of delaying the divorce had been successful.
The Gemara rejects the proof. One cannot establish the law from the outcome of this particular story. It was an exceptional case. The couple happened to reconcile after she had already said that her husband was repulsive to her, but that does not make it the standard outcome. There was special assistance from Heaven in that case. Normally, it does not necessarily work out that way, and the court does not ordinarily force the couple to remain together.
The Gemara tells another story. The daughter-in-law of Rav Zevid became rebellious. She said that she could not live with her husband because he was repulsive to her.
She had brought certain assets into the marriage as part of her dowry. Those assets were still present. She took one of the garments that she had brought into the marriage and said, “I am leaving.”
The Rabbis gathered together, with the great scholar Rav Zevid among them, and they concluded that this woman was rebellious. Even the clothing that she had brought into the marriage as part of her dowry remained subject to the law of a rebellious wife. Since she was considered rebellious, she lost her marriage settlement and had no right to demand compensation for those assets.
The discussion asks what happens to the clothing if it has already become worn. If it is still present, it is treated as property that she forfeits. If it has been worn out, the issue is whether that too is considered forfeited.
Rav Gamda said to the Rabbis, “Just because Rav Zevid is a great man, are you flattering him? Are you accepting his ruling merely because he is the great scholar among you?” The matter was actually unresolved. It was not proper to reverse the law simply because Rav Zevid had expressed an opinion.
The question had been presented to Rava: does the woman keep the clothing, or does the husband receive it? The question was not answered. When a monetary question remains unresolved, the person who is holding the property retains it.
In this case, the woman was holding the garment. Therefore, the Rabbis said that she should keep it. But Rav Gamda objected: the issue had not been resolved, so how could they take the garment away from her or definitively rule in favor of the husband?
A different version of the same story states that the Rabbis ruled that the rebellious woman did not forfeit the clothing as long as it remained in existence. Rav Gamda then said, “Just because Rav Zevid is a great man, are you reversing the law for his sake?”
According to that version, Rav Gamda was saying that the woman should not automatically keep the property. If the husband was holding it, he would retain possession because the question had not been resolved. The result depends on who is holding the property.
The Gemara explains that it is not a settled ruling that the woman always keeps the clothing. She keeps it only in this case because she was the one holding it. If the husband had been holding it, he would not have to surrender it.
Rav Gamda was criticizing the attempt to turn a doubtful matter into a definite ruling. Perhaps the Rabbis assumed that Rav Zevid, because of his humility, would not challenge them. They therefore felt free to rule that the woman should keep the garment. But one may not change the law merely because the great scholar present is humble and will not object.
The Gemara then clarifies the ruling: if she is holding the property, it is not taken away from her. If she is not holding it, it is not given to her. The property remains with whoever is currently in possession of it.
The Gemara adds an interesting and controversial statement: she must wait twelve months before receiving the divorce. The commentators ask who is required to wait twelve months and in which case this applies.
According to Rashi, the statement returns to the case discussed earlier, in which the woman says that her husband is repulsive to her. The difficulty is that we had learned that when she makes such a declaration and is willing to forgo her marriage settlement, the divorce is immediate. She does not undergo the process of deductions and announcements. She leaves immediately and without the marriage settlement.
How, then, can the Gemara say that she must wait twelve months?
This question is raised from the earlier passage, where we learned that a rebellious woman is not compelled to remain married. That seemed to indicate an immediate divorce.
The Rosh, in his discussion of this matter, answers that the twelve-month requirement was a later enactment of the later Rabbis. The earlier enactment had been that the divorce was immediate. Later, the Rabbis saw that women were sometimes declaring, “My husband is repulsive to me,” receiving an immediate divorce without the marriage settlement, and then regretting their decision.
They would return and say that they wanted to reunite with their husbands. The later Rabbis therefore changed the procedure and established a twelve-month waiting period. This gave the woman time to calm down, reconsider, and perhaps change her mind.
Thus, when the earlier sources said that the divorce was immediate, they were referring to the earlier period. The later Rabbis introduced the twelve-month waiting period in response to what they observed happening in practice.
The dispute about whether the court attempts reconciliation still exists, but the twelve-month requirement reflects a later enactment. The purpose was to prevent an impulsive decision followed by regret.
The final part of the statement explains that during those twelve months, she does not receive support from her husband. This is a penalty because she is still considered a rebellious wife. Although she says that her husband is repulsive and does not receive the marriage settlement, she keeps the proceeds of her own work.
Normally, the proceeds of her work go to the husband, while he provides her support. During this twelve-month period, however, she retains the proceeds of her work, and the husband retains the support that he would otherwise have provided. That is the specific arrangement during the waiting period.
May God be blessed forever. Amen.