משנה: קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּי אַבָּא וְעַל פִי אָבִיךָ וְעַל פִּי אָחִי וְעַל פִּי אָחִיךָ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּיךָ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר יָפֵר שֶׁמָּא תַעֲדִיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמַר יָפֵר. שֶׁמָּא יְגָֽרְשֶׁנָּהּ וּתְהֵא אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. MISHNAH: 4: ‘A qônām that I shall not work according to the wishes of my father, or your father, or my brother, or your brother,’ he cannot dissolve. ‘According to your wish,’ he does not have to dissolve47Since she is obligated to keep house for him and work in the house, and nobody can annul his obligations by a vow.. Rebbi Aqiba says, he has to dissolve, maybe she works more than the required minimum48She would be sinning if she did anything for him over the legal minimum stated in Ketubot 5:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.5.1">Mishnah Ketubot 5:5.. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he shall dissolve since maybe he would divorce her, then she would be forbidden to return to him.
הלכה: קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּי אַבָּא כול׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹשָׂה וְאוֹכֶלֶת. הַמּוֹתָר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. הֶקְדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר אוֹמֵר. חוּלִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בְמוֹתָר חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים פְּלִיגִין. דּוּ פָתַר לָהּ בְּמַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לָהּ מָעָה כֶסֶף לִצְרָכֶיהָ. וְתַנִינָן. אִם אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לָהּ מָעָה כֶסֶף לִצְרָכֶיהָ מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּמוֹתָר לְאַחַר מִיתָה פְלִיגִין. דּוּ פָתַר לָהּ בִּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. אֲבָל בְּמַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קִידְּשׁוּ. וָכָא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלֶָר אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלָּהּ. רִבִי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלָּהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלּוֹ. HALAKHAH: “ ‘A qônām that I shall not work according to the wishes of my father,’ etc. There, we have stated49Ketubot 5:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.4.1">Mishnah Ketubot 5:4. The husband dedicated the wife’s income from her work to the Temple. He cannot dispose of what she needs for her livelihood. The question is only about what she earns in excess of her needs. The text of the first part of the paragraph is in Ketubot 5:5:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.5.2-4">Ketubot 5:5 in slightly extended form; the parallel discussion in the Ketubot.58b-59a">Babli Ketubot 58b–59a.: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s work, she works and eats. The excess? Rebbi Meїr says, it is dedicated; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, it is profane.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas50It is stated in Ketubot 5:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.8.1">Mishnah Ketubot5:9 that the husband has to give his wife a silver obolus every week as pocket money. If he does not give it, the Mishnah states that he has lost his claim to her earnings (and his dedication is void since nobody can dedicate what is not his.) He can also require her to spin wool in the weight of 5 Judean tetradrachmas.. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs51He holds that R. Meїr, who is the presumed author of an anonymous Mishnah, states that spinning the 5 tetradrachmas is for the silver obolus she receives, and the excess of her work is for the food the husband provides. In the case considered here, the husband has no right to the value of the first 5 tetradrachma weights of her spinning but he can dedicate all the excess. R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian will hold that the 5 tetradrachmas will pay for the food and the excess for the pocket money, then the excess is the wife’s property and the husband has no right to dedicate it., as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food52He explains an arrangement that the wife takes neither food nor money from the husband and retains all her earnings for herself. In that case, the husband has no say about her earnings. But if she dies before him, he inherits from her and can dedicate what he wishes. (In the Ketubot.58b">Babli, Ketubot 58b, this is Samuel’s position.) R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian holds that nobody can dedicate anything not in his possession; therefore, any disposition of his future inheritance which he makes during her lifetime is void.. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated53R. Joḥanan holds that the spinning of the first 5 tetradrachmas pays for food and pocket money. Therefore, anything in excess is unincumbered property of the husband.. And here, he cannot dissolve! Rebbi Meїr says. he does not have to dissolve54Since she is obligated, she cannot avoid an obligation by a vow.. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, hers. Rebbi Aqiba said, hers. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, his55R Joḥanan the Alexandrian in Ketubot and R. Aqiba in Nedarim both hold that the excess work of the wife belongs to the wife. Therefore, R. Aqiba requires the husband to dissolve the vow lest the wife give to her husband from her earnings and break her vow. But R. Joḥanan ben Nuri holds that the excess is the husband’s; therefore he only counsels the husband to dissolve to permit him to take his wife back after a divorce..
רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. יָפֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. בְּשֶׁאָֽסְרָה מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת עד ה̇ סְלָעִים הוּא כוֹפֶה. מִיכָּן וְאֵילַךְ אֵינוֹ כוֹפֶה. שֶׁמִּתְייָרֵא שֶׁמָּא תַעֲשֶׂה יֹתֵר וְנִמְצֵאת נֶהֱנִית מִן הָאִסּוּר. לְפוּם כֵּן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. יָפֵר שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. אֵיפְשָׁר לָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים מְצוּמְצָמוֹת. עַד ה̇ סְלָעִים כּוֹפֶה. מִיכָּן וְאֵילַךְ אֵינוֹ כוֹפֶה. שֶׁמִּתְייָרֵא שֶׁמָּא תַעֲדִיף כָּל־שֶׁהוּא וְנִמְצָא נֶהֱנֶה מִן הָאִסּוּר. לְפוּם כֵּן. “Rebbi Aqiba said, he has to dissolve.” Rebbi Abba said, if she forbids the yields of her work, [vowing] not to work, he can force her up to the weight of five tetradrachmas. More than that he cannot force, for he has to be afraid that she may work more and it turns out that she profits from what is forbidden56Since the excess is hers automatically.. Therefore, Rebbi Aqiba says, he has to dissolve his part. Rebbi Hila said, it is impossible for her to make exactly the weight of five tetradrachmas. He could force her up to the weight of five tetradrachmas; more that that he cannot force. He has to be afraid that she might be over the limit by a minute amount; then he would profit from what is forbidden57If she thinks that she spun the weight of five tetradrachmas but in fact she made a little more, then in accepting this he would be sinning inadvertently. It is in his interest to dissolve the vow. The smallest weight measurable in talmudic theory is the peruṭa, 1/32 of an obolus (about 4 mg in silver equivalent).. Therefore …58It seems that one has to insert here the text from R. Abba’s argument..
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמַר. יָפֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִם מְגָֽרְשָׁהּ הָיָה אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ וְאַף מַקְנִיטָתוֹ וְהוּא מִגָֽרְשָׁהּ. “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he should dissolve.” Rebbi Hila said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri is that even if he knows that if he divorces her she would be forbidden to return to him, she needles him until he divorces her59Since R. Joḥanan ben Nuri holds that the excess work is the husband’s and the vow would be active only after divorce, it seems that at this moment there is neither a vow of mortification nor one between him and her. How could the husband legally dissolve the vow? It seems R. Hila reads “she knows that if he divorces”. He argues that it is a vow between him and her since the wife, knowing that the husband would be extremely reluctant to divorce her, could be quite unpleasant with impunity and he would suffer..