Study Ketubot folio 70B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
נעשה כאומר לה ״צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך״. ואם איתה להא דרב הונא אמר רב, דאמר רב הונא אמר רב: יכולה אשה שתאמר לבעלה ״איני ניזונת ואיני עושה״, ״קונם שאני עושה לפיך״, אמאי אינו צריך להפר? לימא: מתוך שיכולה לומר ״איני ניזונת ואיני עושה״, נעשה כמי שאומרת לו: ״איני ניזונת ואיני עושה״.
it is considered as though he were in fact saying to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. The Talmud raises a difficulty: And if it is so, i.e., that the halakha is in accordance with that statement that Rav Huna said that Rav said, as Rav Huna said that Rav said: A wife may say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and, in turn, I will not work, i.e., you will not keep my earnings, then when she says: That which I perform for the benefit of your mouth will be forbidden like an offering [konam], why does he not need to nullify the vow? Here too, let us say: Since she is able to say: I will not be sustained by you and I will not work, it is considered as though she were in fact saying to him by her vow: I will not be sustained by you and I will not work, and he should therefore have to nullify the vow.
אלא, לא תימא ״נעשה״, אלא באומר לה: ״צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך״.
Rather, the Talmud retracts its previous interpretation in favor of the following: Do not say it is considered as though he said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. Rather, the Mishnah is referring to a case where he explicitly says to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself.
אי הכי פרנס למה לה? בדלא ספקה: אי בדלא ספקה — הדר קושיין לדוכתיה? אמר רב אשי: במספקת לדברים גדולים, ואינה מספקת לדברים קטנים.
The Talmud raises a difficulty: If so, if he provided for her sustenance by instructing her to spend her own earnings, why does she require a trustee? The Talmud answers: This is referring to a situation where the amount she earns is not enough for her needs. Therefore, the husband must appoint a trustee to provide the balance. The Talmud asks: If it is a case where the amount she earns is not enough for her needs, our difficulty is restored to its place: How can he prohibit her from benefiting from him if he is under a prior obligation to provide for her? Rav Ashi said: The Mishnah is referring to a case where her earnings are enough for large things, i.e., her basic requirements, but not enough for small things.