Kesubos - Daf 58

  • Machlokes regarding how much of the food a Kohen gives his arusah can be from terumah

The Mishnah on Daf 57a introduced a machlokes regarding how much terumah a husband may give his kallah. Rebbe Tarfon says: נותנין לה הכל תרומה – She may be given all her food from terumah, but Rebbe Akiva says: מחצה חולין ומחצה תרומה – half of her food must be from chullin, and half may be terumah. Rashi explains that according to Rebbe Tarfon, even though a tamei person, such as a niddah, may not eat terumah, she can sell some of the terumah to purchase chullin while she is tamei. Rebbe Akiva holds that half the food must be chullin so she has what to eat when she is tamei. On this Daf, Abaye said the machlokes is regarding a Bas Kohen married to a Kohen, but with a bas Yisroel who is mekudeshes to a Kohen, everybody agrees it must be half chullin, half terumah. Rashi explains that a Bas Kohen knows that terumah must be sold when she is tamei, but a Bas Yisroel is not familiar with this. Therefore, Rebbe Tarfon would agree that she be given half her food from chullin. Abaye also said that the machlokes only applies to an arusah, but everybody agrees that a nesuah must have half her food from chullin. Rashi explains that an arusah’s father, who is a Kohen, can sell the terumah for her. But for a nesuah, referring to a wife who eats separately from her husband, it would be immodest for her to go out to the marketplace to sell terumah. A Baraisa is brought with three more opinions.

  • Question whether בדיקת חוץ שמה בדיקה

The Mishnah said regarding a husband feeding his arusah terumah, זו משנה ראשונה בית דין של אחריהן אמרו אין האשה אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה – This was the original teaching. But a Beis Din that came after them said that a woman may not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah. Ulla, and some say it was Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, said the reason for the latter Beis Din was משום סימפון – because of the possibility that an annulling issue will retroactively invalidate the kiddushin. The Gemara asks what the difference is between the first and latter ruling, according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah who said the first ruling was because of סימפון  and permitted her to eat after twelve months , and the latter ruling which was because of סימפון and prohibits her to eat terumah until chuppah, and answers that the difference is בדיקת חוץ – whether a superficial examination, which is an examination done by female relatives and not himself, is sufficient to eliminate the possibility of a defect. The original Beis Din held בדיקת חוץ שמה בדיקה – a superficial examination is deemed an effective examination, and the latter Beis Din held, בדיקת חוץ לא שמה בדיקה – a superficial examination is not an effective examination.

  • יכולה אשה לומר לבעלה איני ניזונת ואיני עושה

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: יכולה אשה לומר לבעלה איני ניזונת ואיני עושה – A woman may say to her husband, “I will not be supported by you, and I will not work and give you my earnings”. The Gemara explains that he holds: כי תקינו רבנן מזוני עיקר ומעשה ידיה משום איבה – that when the Rabbanon were metaken that a husband must support his wife and she must work and give him her earnings, the primary purpose of the enactment was the food support of the wife, and the husband’s right to her earnings is to prevent his ill will to her that he is supporting her and not receiving her earnings in return. Therefore, since the enactment was for her benefit, הרשות בידה – she is within her rights to refuse support and keep her earnings.