(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Kesuvos 61

KESUVOS 61 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in honor of Rav Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.



(a) If a man wants ...
1. ... to hire a wet-nurse for their baby but his wife wants to feed him herself - nothing stands before her physical pain (of retaining her milk), and we listen to her.
2. ... his wife to feed and she does not want to (assuming that it is not her family Minhag to do so) - she is exempt from feeding (because she does not 'go down with him').
3. ... his wife to feed and she does not want to (assuming that it is her family Minhag to do so but not his) - she does not need to feed (because she 'goes up with him'.
1. Rav Huna learns this from the Pasuk "ve'Hi Be'ulas Ba'al" - 'ba'Aliyaso shel Ba'al ve'Lo bi'Yeridaso shel Ba'al'.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar learns it from the Pasuk "Ki Hi Haysah Eim Kol *Chai*" - *'le'Chayim* Nitnah ve'Lo le'Tza'ar Nitnah'.
(a) A woman who brings in ...
1. ... one Shifchah, becomes exempt from grinding, baking and washing clothes, but not from all other Melachos. She cannot claim that that is why she brought in a Shifchah - because her husband can retort that the one Shifchah is sufficient to serve him, but not her.
2. ... two Shefachos, also becomes exempt from cooking and feeding her baby, but not from all other Melachos - because, if she claims that she has brought two Shefachos, he can retort that the two Shefachos are sufficient to look after both of their needs, but who will look after the guests?
3. ... three Shefachos, also becomes exempt from making her husband's bed and working in wool but not from all other Melachos, in spite of the extra Shifchah - because her husband can retort that an extra Shifchah means more guests.
(b) He cannot however, present the same argument when she brings in four Shefachos - because then she can retort that four Shefachos are sufficient to contend with any amount of guests.
(a) Rav Chana and some say Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeini explains that the number of Shefachos that the woman brings in (of which our Mishnah speaks) incorporates when she does not necessarily bring in the Shefachos, but that, due to her large dowry, she has the means to do so.

(b) When the Tana of the Beraisa writes that 'Tzimtzemah Lo mi'she'Lah' is the same as bringing in a Shifchah (as part of the Nidunyah) - he refers to a woman who scrimped from the extras that her husband is obligated to give her (such as a box of Besamim each week), and with the proceeds she purchased Shefachos.

(c) The three Melachos that Rav Yitzchak bar Chananya Amar Rav Huna 'obligates' a woman to perform on behalf of her husband, irrespective of how many Shefachos she may have - are pouring her husband a cup of wine whilst he is holding the cup (see Rosh Si'man 24), spreading the sheet on his bed (as opposed to making the bed in our Mishnah - see Tosfos Rid) and washing his face, hands and feet (or even pouring the water into the basin for that purpose - see Ran) all of which are not really obligatory, but merely strongly advisable, seeing as they are acts of love.

(d) Rav Yitzchak bar Chananya Amar Rav Huna forbids the same three Melachos - when the woman is a Nidah (because it may lead to intimacy).

(a) Rava permits a woman to spread the sheet on her husband's bed even when she is a Nidah - as long as it is not in his presence.

(b) Shmuel's wife poured him a cup of wine during her days of Libun (the week of Taharah following the Nidus - see Tosfos), with her left hand.

(c) Rava, Abaye and Rav Papa permitted a Nidah to pour her husband a cup of wine - and place it on another surface (other than in his hand), such as the surface of a barrel, on his cushion or an a bench.

(a) Rav Huna states that most foods can safely be served to the Shamash after the guests have finished eating. The two exceptions are (juicy) meat and (old) wine (Rav Chisda) - because they have a particularly tantalizing aroma.

(b) This Halachah vis-a-vis meat applies all the year round - but regarding wine, only in the season of Tamuz, when the heat brings out the full extent of the strong aroma.

(c) Similar incidents occurred to Rav Anan bar Tachlifa when he was once standing in front of Shmuel whom they served a certain species of mushroom, and to Rav Ashi when they served Rav Kahana slices of turnip - both of them would have been in grave danger had they not been given some to eat.

(d) According to Rav Papa, this danger extends even to fat dates. The two conditions that a food requires to fall into this category - are a strong smell and acid content.

(a) Avuhah bar Ihi and Menimin bar Ihi differed slightly in the way they would serve the waiters who served their Se'udos. Eliyahu would appear - to the one who served the waiter from each dish, but not to the one who served from only one dish.

(b) And he would also appear to one of the two Chasidim (possibly Rav Mari and Rav Pinchas, sons of Rav Chisda) - who would serve the waiter from each dish before he himself and the guests had been served, but not to the other, who would only serve him afterwards.

(a) When Azgur Malka's household manager passed by holding the tray of food to serve at the royal table - Mar Zutra had a desire to eat from the food, and his face turned white. Rav Ashi dipped his finger into the food and placed it in his mouth (see Agados Maharsha).

(b) When the royal guards questioned him as to why he had spoiled the king's food - he replied that the food was unfit to serve to a king, seeing as it contained the meat of a leprous pig.

(c) When, upon inspection, they were unable to verify Rav Ashi's accusation - he suggested that they should examine a different part of the dish, where they did in fact, discover leprous pig's meat.

(d) He explained to his colleagues that he was not relying on a miracle, when he leveled the accusation - but that he had seen signs of leprosy on the meat.




(a) When the woman refused to accept the Roman's proposal for marriage - he brought a pomegranate and peeled it and ate it in front of her, but did not offer her any.

(b) She endangered herself by - swallowing the spittle that collected in her mouth as a result of the pomegranate acid, which she smelt but was unable to eat, causing her face and stomach to swell.

(c) He got her to accept his proposal - by offering to cure her if she would accept.

(d) He then cured her - by instructing her to eject all the spittle that collected in her mouth, until eventually, the dangerous acids emerged in the form of a green strip resembling a long, thin palm-branch.

(a) The author of our Mishnah (which requires a woman to manufacture *woolen* clothes - but not linen ones), is Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah differentiates between wool and linen - because linen creates a foul smell in one's mouth (where one needs to place the threads in order to wet them), and causes a swelling of the lips.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa does not require the woman to serve her husband's father or his son. He is not permitted to instruct her to place straw in front of his animal - because we are afraid that the animal will become excited and rape her.

(c) He may however, instruct her to place straw in front of his cattle - because cattle are more placid. Alternatively, by 'animals', the Tana means male animals, and by 'cattle', he means female ones.

(a) According to Rav Chinena Brei de'Rav Ika, the author of 'Sh'fod', 'Shefachos' (our case) and 'Gumos' is Rav Malkiyo; of 'B'luris', 'Eifer Makleh' and 'Gevinah', Rav Malkiya. According to Rav Papa - whatever deals with a Mishnah or Beraisa, is Rav Malkiya, whatever is just a plain Machlokes Amora'im, is Rav Malkiyo (The Si'man to remember this is that both Mishnah and Beraisa end with an 'Alef', just like Malkiya).

(b) The difference between them is 'Shefachos', which is a Mishnah. Consequently, according to Rav Papa, it would be Rav *Malkiya* who said it (and not Rav *Malkiyo*, as Rav Chinena Brei de'Rav Ika maintains) - see also Tosfos DH 'Ika Beinaihu'.

(c) Despite the fact that both Rebbi Eliezer and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel agree that a woman is never exempt from work, the difference whether this is because it leads to adultery or to senility will be - a woman who plays with little dogs or dabbles in magic (the Aruch), both of which will prevent senility, but not immorality (Rashi translates 'Nadreshir' as chess, but it is unclear how that leads to immorality).

(a) If a man makes a Neder forbidding Tashmish with his wife, Beis Shamai allow a maximum of two weeks. Beis Hillel say - one.

(b) The Pasuk "ve'Onasah Lo Yigra" does not apply here - because he forbade *himself* from having Hana'ah *from his wife*, and not vice-versa.

(c) Someone who made a Neder for a longer period than that - is obligated to divorce his wife (should she demand it) and to pay her Kesuvah.

(d) Talmidim are permitted to leave home to study Torah without express permission from their wives for thirty days. The maximum time period allowed to workers - is one week.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer gives the Shiur Onah for all the different groups of people. Onah - is a man's obligation to be intimate with his wife on regular occasions, depending on his occupation, as we shall now see.

(b) The Onah of Tayalim (which will be explained later in the Sugya) is every day, workers, twice weekly and ass-drivers, once a week. The Onah of ...

1. ... camel-drivers - is once every thirty days.
2. ... sailors - once every six months.
(a) Beis Shamai in our Mishnah learn two weeks (by Neder) from a woman who gives birth to a girl (and who is Tamei for two weeks). We reject the original contention, that Beis Hillel's source for one week is a woman who gave birth to a boy - because then he should have agreed with Beis Shamai's two-week time-period (seeing as it is normal for a man to wait that amount of time).

(b) So we conclude that Beis Hillel's source is a Nidah (who is forbidden to her husband for one week).

1. Beis Hillel prefer to learn the Din of Neder from a Nidah rather than from a woman who gave birth to a girl - because both Neder (the result of a man being angry with his wife) and Nidah are relatively common, whereas the birth of a girl is not.
2. Beis Shamai prefer to learn the Din of Neder from a woman who gave birth to a girl rather than from a Nidah - because both Neder and the birth of a girl result from *his* actions, whereas Nidah comes entirely from *her*.
(c) According to Rav, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue when the man specifically mentioned the respective time period of each opinion, but not if he made the Neder S'tam - since the Neder has no time limit, and is comparable to a Neder that the husband specifically made forever, in which case, she may demand a divorce immediately.

(d) Shmuel disagrees with Rav - on the grounds that it is possible for the husband to nullify his Neder, in which case it is not comparable to a Neder that he specifically made forever.

(a) The Mishnah in ha'Madir says - that if a man makes a Neder forbidding his wife from having Hana'ah from him, up to thirty days, he feeds her through a Sh'liach; more than thirty days, he must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah.

(b) Rav and Shmuel are involved in the same Machlokes there (regarding S'tam) as they are here, and for the same reasons, apparently duplicating their views here. We might have thought however, that, had Rav said by S'tam that he must send his wife away and pay her Kesuvah in our case - that is because there is no way that he can pay his wife her dues (regarding Tashmish) via a Sh'liach, whereas in ha'Madir, where this is possible, perhaps even Rav will agree with Shmuel that even by S'tam, he should wait thirty days.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,