Source: http://halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_58.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:00:54+00:00

Document:
R. TARFON SAID: ALL [THE SUSTENANCE] FOR SUCH A WOMAN MAY BE GIVEN OF TERUMAH etc. Abaye stated: The dispute12 applies only to the daughter of a priest13 who was betrothed to a priest but with respect to the daughter of an Israelite14 who was betrothed to a priest all15 agree [that she is supplied with] one half of unconsecrated food16 and one half of terumah.
So Tosaf. s.v. [H], and cf. [G], 'gambler'; [G]; 'a crafty person' (contra Rashi's interpretation, 'kidnapper').
Lit., 'he reached him'. Slaves being known to possess such characters a buyer of a slave is presumed to have accepted the inevitable.
That might be given as a reason for the cancellation of the sale.
Lit., 'they have a voice', and the buyer must have known the circumstances before he bought him and must have consented to have him despite his unsavoury character.
The daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest.
Once he consented to overlook them he cannot again advance them as a reason for the annulment of the betrothal. In such a case R. Samuel's explanation is not applicable while that of 'Ulla is.
Cf. supra 48b. As she does not any longer live with her father's family 'Ulla's reason does not apply while that of R. Samuel does.
That of R. Tarfon and R. Akiba.
Who is familiar with the restrictions of terumah and would, therefore, abstain from eating it during the days of her Levitical uncleanness when consecrated food is forbidden to her.
Who may be ignorant of the restrictions appertaining to terumah.
For consumption during the days of her uncleanness.
Being the daughter of a priest.
Her father with whom she lives during the period of her betrothal might well be relied upon that, as a priest, he would duly supervise her observance of the laws of terumah and would, during her uncleanness, himself, or through her brothers, sell her terumah and purchase for her with the proceeds unconsecrated food.
Who does not live with her husband (cf. infra 64b).
Being alone she might not be able to arrange for the sale of her terumah during her uncleanness, and might consequently be apt to consume the consecrated food forbidden to her.
V. p. 342, n. 10.
V. p. 342. n. 14.
V. p. 342, n. 15.
But, unlike R. Tarfon who allows only as much terumah as if it were unconsecrated victuals, R. Judah allows a larger quantity of terumah (which is cheaper) so that its proceeds should suffice for the purchase of the required quantity of ordinary food.
In the subject under discussion.
Tosef. Keth. V. ab. init.
R. Judah and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.
In the selling of her terumah. It is difficult to sell terumah (the buyers of which, being priests only, are naturally few) and it must be offered at a very low price. To save the woman trouble R. Gamaliel allows her terumah double the quantity of unconsecrated victuals so that by reducing the price of the former by a half she would easily dispose of it and be able to acquire with the proceeds her required ordinary victuals. R. Judah, however, makes no provision for saving her trouble, and allows her only a slight margin of terumah above that of ordinary food estimated at the current prices.
Lev. XXII, 11, v. also supra p. 340, n. 5; only such may eat terumah.
She does not become his own wife before he acquired her through the levirate marriage.
I.e., OR ALL OF THEM WITH THE LEVIR LESS ONE DAY WITH HER HUSBAND etc. If when one day only of the twelve months was not spent with the husband she does not acquire the privilege of eating terumah, how much less would such a privilege be acquired when all the period less one day was not spent with the husband!
Lit., 'this, and he need not tell this'.
Of the later Beth din.
V. supra p. 341, nn. 3-4.
Who (supra 75b) gave as the reason for the ruling of the earlier Mishnah that the woman might allow her relatives to drink of her cup of terumah.
Forbidding terumah during the first twelve months also permitting it after the expiration of that period.
Which extends the prohibition until the entry into the bridal chamber.
V. supra p. 340, n. 6.
And she might allow her relatives to drink from it (v. supra note 6). As this would not happen after the twelve months when the intended husband, becoming liable for her maintenance and desirous of preventing her from giving away his victuals to her relatives in her father's house, provides for her an abode of her own, the woman was permitted to eat terumah.
V. supra p. 341, n. 3. Hence the extension of the prohibition until the entry into the bridal chamber.
An objection was raised: Maintenance [for a wife] was provided in return for her handiwork!14 — Read: Her handiwork was assigned [to her husband] in return for her maintenance.
May it be suggested that [our Mishnah] provides support for his15 view? [It stated,] IF A MAN CONSECRATED HIS WIFE'S HANDIWORK SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO WORK AND TO CONSUME [THE PROCEEDS HERSELF]. Does not [this refer to a wife for whom her husband is able16 to] provide maintenance?17 — No; [it is a case where the husband is unable to] provide her maintenance. If, however, [her husband is unable to] provide her maintenance, what need was there to state [such an obvious case]?18 Even according to him who holds that a master has the right to say to his slave, 'Work for me but I will not maintain you,'19 such a rule applies only to a Canaanite slave concerning whom Scripture has not written 'with thee', but not to a Hebrew slave concerning whom it is written in Scripture. With thee,20 how much less then [would this apply to] his wife?21 — It22 was necessary [as an introduction to] the final clause: [IF, HOWEVER, HE CONSECRATED] THE SURPLUS [ONLY]. R. MEIR RULED: IT IS DULY CONSECRATED.23 R. JOHANAN HA-SANDELAR RULED: IT REMAINS UNCONSECRATED.
The author of the earlier Mishnah.
Lit., 'outside'. Which the man would naturally arrange at the expiry of the twelve months when he becomes liable for her maintenance.
I.e., after such an examination a man can no longer refuse to marry the woman on the ground of the subsequent detection in her of some bodily defect. Hence his ruling (v. supra p. 344. n. 7).
I.e., the authorities of the latter ruling.
And the man may cancel the engagement. Hence the prohibition to eat terumah until the entry into the bridal chamber when the man himself has the opportunity of ascertaining the condition of her body.
Which partly belongs to him (v. infra 64b).
Of the proceeds in excess of the sum required for her maintenance.
The Hebrew equivalent of the last five words is wanting in the corresponding passage in B.K. 8b.
Since a woman cannot always earn sufficient for her maintenance.
As the Rabbinical enactment aimed at the benefit of the woman only, she may well decline that favour if she is so minded.
Which belongs to her husband (supra 47b). This implies that the assignment of a wife's handiwork to her husband was the original provision.
And, indeed, also desires to do so. Cf. Rashi and Tosaf. s.v. [H].
And since he is nevertheless precluded from consecrating her handiwork it follows, as R. Huna ruled, that a wife is entitled to refuse maintenance and to retain her right over her work.
That he has no right to consecrate her handiwork which does not belong to him!
B.K. 87b, supra 43a, Git. 12a.
What need then was there to state the obvious?
The first clause which is indeed self-evident.
Though he does not maintain her.
For giving a husband the right of consecrating his wife's handiwork.
Such as the woman's work before she has performed it.
Which, of course, were in existence at the time of the consecration. Thus it has been shown that according to Resh Lakish it is the opinion of R. Meir that a husband has the right to compel his wife to work.
He did not say 'Your hands', but 'Your handiwork'.
Since it would serve no purpose at all in the form he used it.
When the respective conditions are fulfilled, though at the time of the betrothal they were still unfulfilled (Yeb. 92b, 93b, B.M. 16b). This then shows that a man can legally dispose even of that which is not yet in existence.
V. n. 7 final clause.
Since the reason may well be the one given supra by Resh Lakish.
When her husband inherits her estate.
As soon as it is produced.
Could the two opposing views be justified.
Whereby he acquires the right to her earnings.
Whereby he acquires the right to the surplus of her earnings in excess of the sum required for her maintenance, cf. infra 64b.
Since the husband is entitled to both her earnings and the surplus the consecration should take effect even while she is alive.

References: V. 

V. 

V. 
 V. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V.