THE ENACTMENT TO FEED ONE'S WIFE [line before last of previous Amud]
Answer (Rav Papa): He is feeding her, but is not giving a weekly Ma'ah;
Rav and Shmuel hold that food was enacted in exchange for (standard) earnings, and a weekly Ma'ah in exchange for extra earnings;
Since he is not giving a Ma'ah, the extra earnings are not his.
Rav Ada holds that food was enacted in exchange for extra earnings; and a Ma'ah in exchange for earnings;
Since he is feeding her, the extra earnings are his.
Question: What is the basis of the argument?
Answer: Rav and Shmuel hold that we enacted what is common (food) in return for what is common (standard earnings). Rav Ada holds that we enacted what is fixed (a Ma'ah) for what is fixed (standard earnings, detailed in the Mishnah 64b).
Question (against Rav Ada - Beraisa): Food was enacted in return for earnings.
Answer: It means 'in return for extra earnings.'
Question (against Rav and Shmuel - Mishnah): If he does not give to her money for extra expenses, she keeps her earnings.
Answer: It means 'she keeps her extra earnings.'
Question: The Mishnah proceeds to teach 'How much must she produce? She must spin five Sela'im of warp-thread...'
Answer: It teaches how much is required, so we will know what is considered extra. The standard is five Sela'im...
A VOW ABOUT SOMETHING NOT YET IN THE WORLD [line 16]
(Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.
Question: Shmuel contradicts himself! (Above (58b), Shmuel said that the Tana'im argue about Hekdesh of something not yet in the world, and R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar holds that it does not take effect.)
(Mishnah): If a wife vowed 'what my hands produce is Konam (forbidden like a Korban) to your mouth', her husband need not annul it (it is void anyway);
R. Akiva says, he should annul it, lest she will earn extra;
R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, he should annul it, lest he divorce her and be unable to remarry her.
(Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri. (He says the vow takes effect on what is not yet in the world.)
Answer #1: Shmuel said that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri regarding extra earnings. (Tosfos - her husband gets them. Rashi - he should annul the vow, like R. Yochanan ben Nuri said, but not due to concern for after divorce, rather, because the vow forbids extra earnings.)
Objection: If so, Shmuel should have said that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri regarding extra earnings, or that the Halachah is unlike the first Tana, or that the Halachah follows R. Akiva!
Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): One cannot ask a question from Konamos to Hekdesh. Konamos are different!
Since Reuven can forbid Shimon's property to himself through Konamos, he can also forbid something that is not yet in the world.
Objection (Abaye): Granted, Reuven can forbid Shimon's friend's property to himself through Konam, just like Reuven can forbid his own property to Shimon (it suffices for the forbidden object or the forbidden person to be in Reuven's Reshus);
But can Reuven forbid something not in the world to Shimon?! (The forbidden object and the forbidden person are not in Reuven's Reshus.) Reuven cannot forbid Shimon's property to Shimon!
Answer #3 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The case is, she said 'My hands are Hekdesh to their Maker.' Her hands are in the world.
Question: Her hands do not become Hekdesh! They are not in her Reshus, for they are obliged to work for the husband!
Answer: She said 'they will be Hekdesh after I am divorced.'
Question: Do we ever find that something does not become Hekdesh now, and it becomes Hekdesh later?
Answer #1 (R. Ila'i): Yes! Reuven says 'this field that I sell to you should be Hekdesh when I buy it back!'
Objection (R. Yirmiyah): The comparison is faulty! There, he can be Makdish it now (before selling it). The wife cannot!
(R. Yirmiyah): Our case is like Reuven saying 'the field that I sold to you should be Hekdesh when I buy it back.' It does not become Hekdesh!
Objection (Rav Papa): The comparison is faulty! There, the buyer owns the field itself and its Peiros. In our case, the wife owns her hands!
Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We find such a case. Reuven says 'the field that I mortgaged to you (gave for collateral for a loan, to eat its produce until the loan is repaid) should be Hekdesh when I redeem it.' The field becomes Hekdesh!
Objection (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): The comparison is faulty! There, he can redeem the field. The wife cannot divorce herself!
Answer #3 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): We find such a case. Reuven says 'the field that I mortgaged to you for 10 years should be Hekdesh when I redeem it.' The field becomes Hekdesh!
Objection (Rav Ashi): The comparison is faulty! There, he can redeem the field after 10 years. A wife can never divorce herself!
Answer #4 (to Question (b) - Rav Ashi): One cannot ask from Konamos, for they are different. They are like Hekdesh ha'Guf (for Avodah in the Mikdash), like Rava taught:
(Rava): Hekdesh (ha'Guf), the Isur of Chametz, and freeing a slave uproot liens.
Question: If so, her earnings should become forbidden immediately!
Answer: Chachamim strengthened the lien of a husband, therefore it does not become Hekdesh now.
WORK A WIFE MUST DO FOR HER HUSBAND [line 14]
(Mishnah): A wife must grind, bake, launder, cook, nurse her son, spread her husband's bedsheet, and spin wool;
If she brought a slave into the marriage, she is exempted from grinding, baking and laundering;
If she brought two slaves, she is exempted also from cooking and nursing;
If she brought three slaves, she is exempted also from making his bed and spinning wool;
If she brought four slaves, she sits in a comfortable chair (and need not work at all);
R. Eliezer says, even if she brings 100 slaves, he forces her to spin wool, since idleness causes immorality;
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, even if through a vow one forbade his wife to work, he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah, for idleness leads to insanity.
(Gemara) Question: Does the Mishnah really mean that she grinds? (Water turns the millstone!)
Answer #1: Rather, she makes the preparations for grinding.
Answer #2: She grinds using a hand-mill.
Our Mishnah is unlike R. Chiya:
(R. Chiya - Beraisa): A wife is only for beauty, and for having and raising children.
(R. Chiya - Beraisa): A wife is only to receive jewelry to adorn herself.
(R. Chiya - Beraisa): One who wants to make his wife radiant should clothe her in linen. One who wants to whiten his daughter should feed her chicks and give to her milk to drink before she becomes a Na'arah.
(Mishnah): She must nurse her son...
Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai.
(Beraisa - Beis Shamai): If a wife vowed not to nurse her son, she may not nurse him;
Beis Hillel says, her husband can force her to nurse him.
If he divorces her, he cannot force her. If the baby recognizes his mother, he pays her wages (for nursing) and she must nurse him, due to the danger.
Rejection: Our Mishnah is even like Beis Shamai. The case is, she vowed and he confirmed the vow.
Beis Shamai holds that he is to blame (for confirming the vow, therefore it can uproot her obligation to him);
Beis Hillel hold that she is to blame (so it cannot uproot her obligation).
Objection #1: If so, they should argue more directly about whether or not he must pay a Kesuvah (when he confirmed a vow that obligates him to divorce her)!
Objection #2 (Beraisa - Beis Shamai): A woman need not nurse.
Conclusion: Indeed, our Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai!