Gittin, Daf Yod Bet, Part 2

Introduction

The Talmud continues to analyze the baraita about the obligation to feed a slave or wife who has fled to the refuge city and how this reflects on the obligation outside of this context.

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא אֲבָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁגָּלְתָה לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט בַּעְלָהּ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ מִכְּלָל דְּלָא אֲמַר לַהּ דְּאִי אֲמַר לַהּ בַּעְלַהּ אַמַּאי חַיָּיב

וּמִדְּסֵיפָא דְּלָא אֲמַר לַהּ רֵישָׁא נָמֵי דְּלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ

And since it teaches at the end of the baraita: But if a wife flees to the refuge city, her husband is obligated in her sustenance. By deduction this is not a case where he said to her, for if her husband did say to her, why is he liable.

And since the last section is a case where he didn t tell her, the first is also a case where he didn t tell her.

The baraita referred to in yesterday s section stated that a master does not have to feed slave who fled to the refuge city. The Talmud said that this referred to a case where the master told him, Use the profit of your work to feed yourself. The second half of the baraita teaches that if a wife flees, the husband must provide for her. But if he said, Use the profit of your work to feed yourself why does he have to feed her? Therefore, he must not have made that statement. And if in the second half of the baraita he did not make that statement, then he didn t in the first half either.

לְעוֹלָם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ וְאִשָּׁה בִּדְלָא סָפְקָה וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא וְאִם אָמַר לָהּ צְאִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ רַשַּׁאי מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא דְּלָא אֲמַר לַהּ

Indeed it refers to a case where he said to her, but her earnings were not sufficient.

But since it teaches at the end, And if he says to her use the profit of your work to feed yourself, he is permitted the first clause is where he did not say to her.

The Talmud answers that the husband made the statement, but her earnings were not sufficient. In such a case, he is liable to feed her to make up for the difference.

The problem is that the last clause of the baraita refers to a case where he made this statement to her. So the previous clause must be a case where he did not. And if in this case he did not, then also in the case of the slave he did not.

הָכִי קָאָמַר וְאִם מַסְפֶּקֶת וְאָמַר לַהּ צְאִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ רַשַּׁאי

מַסְפֶּקֶת מַאי לְמֵימְרָא מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כׇּל כְּבוּדָּה בַת מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן

This is what it means to say: And if she makes sufficient earnings and he says to her, Use the profit of your work to feed yourself he is permitted.

If she makes sufficient earnings? What does this say? What might you have thought? All glorious is the king s daughter within the palace (Psalms 45:14). Therefore it teaches us.

The Talmud adjusts the baraita, so that in this clause, he can make the statement only if she earns enough to feed herself. Thus we have the following interpretation of the baraita: 1) A master can make the statement to the slave. 2) He can t make the statement to the wife. 3) He can make the statement if she earns enough to provide for herself.

The Talmud raises one last difficulty this last clause is obvious. If she makes enough to pay for herself, then of course the husband can let her do so. The answer is that we might have thought that a husband cannot even allow his wife to work, because of modesty. The glory of a woman is found at home, not out at work. Therefore, the baraita comes to teach us that there is no problem with her going to work and earning her own living. Good to know.