Study Ketubot folio 65A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אין פוסקין יינות לאשה, ואם תאמר: ״אלכה אחרי מאהבי נותני לחמי ומימי צמרי ופשתי שמני ושקויי״ — דברים שהאשה משתוקקת עליהן, ומאי נינהו — תכשיטין.
Wines are not allotted to a wife. And if you say that in the verse: “I will go after my lovers who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” (Hosea 2:7), “drink [shikkuyai]” is apparently a reference to wine, which indicates that it is usual for a woman to receive wine, this is invalid, since actually shikkuyai is not referring to wine but rather to items that a woman desires [mishtokeket]. And what are these? Jewelry or other ornaments, not wine.
דרש רבי יהודה איש כפר נביריא, ואמרי לה איש כפר נפור חיל: מנין שאין פוסקין יינות לאשה — שנאמר: ״ותקם חנה אחרי אכלה בשילה ואחרי שתה״. ״שתה״, ולא ״שתת״.
R' Yehuda of the village of Neviraya, and some say of the village of Nefor Ḥayil, interpreted a verse: From where is it derived that one does not allot wines for a woman? As it is stated: “So Hannah rose up after she had eaten in Shiloh and after he had drunk” (I Samuel 1:9). It states: “He had drunk,” and not: She had drunk. This teaches that although she ate, she did not drink wine.
אלא מעתה ״אכלה״ ולא ״אכלו״, הכי נמי?! אנן מדשני קרא בדבוריה קאמרינן. מכדי בגוה קא עסיק ואתי, מאי טעמא שני? שמע מינה ״שתה״ ולא ״שתת״.
The Talmud asks: However, if that is so, by the same reasoning, should the phrase “she had eaten,” which is in the feminine, indeed be interpreted to mean that only she ate, and that he did not eat? The Talmud answers: We say this interpretation from the fact that the verse changed its language. Since the verse was already dealing with her, what is the reason that it changed the terminology and did not state: And had drunk, in the feminine? One can learn from this that “he had drunk” means that he drank, but she did not drink.