סוגיה 26- מלאכות האשה
User Profile Picture
Byיאיר טיקטין
כתובות נ״ט ב:ו׳-ט׳

מתניתין:

אלו המלאכות שהאישה עושה לבעלה:

טוחנת, ואופה, ומכבסת, מבשלת, ומניקה את בנה,

מצעת לו המיטה, ועושה בצמר.

הכניסה לו שפחה אחת -

לא טוחנת ולא אופה ולא מכבסת.

שתיים – אין מבשלת ואין מניקה את בנה.

שלוש – אין מצעת לו המטה, ואין עושה בצמר.

ארבע – יושבת בקתדרא.

רבי אליעזר אומר:

אפילו הכניסה לו מאה שפחות - כופה לעשות בצמר,

שהבטלה מביאה לידי זימה.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל:

אף המדיר את אשתו מלעשות מלאכה -

יוציא וייתן כתובה.

שהבטלה מביאה לידי שעמום.

גמרא:

טוחנת- סלקא דעתך?

אלא אימא: מטחנת.

ואיבעית אימא: בריחיא דידא.

מתניתין דלא כרבי חייא:

דתני רבי חייא: אין אשה אלא ליופי

אין אשה אלא לבנים

ותני רבי חייא: אין אשה אלא לתכשיטי אשה.

ותני רבי חייא: הרוצה שיעדן את אשתו

ילבישנה כלי פשתן.

הרוצה שילבין את בתו

יאכילנה אפרוחים

וישקנה חלב סמוך לפירקה:

Ketubot 59b:6-9
This field that I mortgaged to you and from whose produce you are benefiting will be consecrated when I redeem it from you. The halakha is that it is consecrated, since the field itself was not transferred to another’s ownership. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: Is it comparable? There, in the case where he mortgaged the field, it is in his power to redeem it, whereas here, with regard to a woman who renders her earnings prohibited to her husband, it is not in her power to divorce herself from her husband. This is only comparable to one who says to another: This field that I have mortgaged to you for ten years will be consecrated when I redeem it from you. The halakha is that it is consecrated. Similarly, in this case, despite the fact that her earnings belong to her husband, when she will be divorced they will revert to her, and since her hands have always belonged to her, she can consecrate her earnings. Rav Ashi objects to this: Is it comparable? There, after ten years in any case it will be in his power to redeem it, whereas here, with regard to a woman, it is never in her power to divorce herself from her husband. Consequently, there is no way for her to consecrate her future earnings. Rather, the contradiction between the two rulings of Shmuel must be resolved in a different manner. Rav Ashi said: Did you speak about konamot? Konamot are different, since they are a type of inherent sanctity, and therefore the konam can take effect on an item that is subjugated to another person, in accordance with the halakha articulated by Rava. As Rava said: Consecration, the prohibition of leavened bread on Passover, and the liberation of a slave can all abrogate a lien on property. If property was mortgaged to another person, and then the owner consecrated it, or if leavened bread was mortgaged and Passover arrived and it became prohibited to benefit from it, or if a slave was mortgaged and then liberated by his owner, the lien is abrogated. Since konam is a form of consecration, it can take effect on an item even when it is subjugated to another when the owner prohibited it, similar to the case of mortgaged property. The Gemara asks: If it is so, that a konam can remove the lien on property, let her earnings become consecrated from now, even before her husband divorces her. The Gemara answers: The Sages reinforced the husband’s lien in order that it not become consecrated now. However, since in general a konam can take effect on mortgaged items, it can take effect on her earnings after she leaves her husband’s jurisdiction. MISHNA: And these are tasks that a wife must perform for her husband: She grinds wheat into flour, and bakes, and washes clothes, cooks, and nurses her child, makes her husband’s bed, and makes thread from wool by spinning it. If she brought him one maidservant, i.e., brought the maidservant with her into the marriage, the maidservant will perform some of these tasks. Consequently, the wife does not need to grind, and does not need to bake, and does not need to wash clothes. If she brought him two maidservants, she does not need to cook and does not need to nurse her child if she does not want to, but instead may give the child to a wet nurse. If she brought him three maidservants, she does not need to make his bed and does not need to make thread from wool. If she brought him four maidservants, she may sit in a chair [katedra] like a queen and not do anything, as her maidservants do all of her work for her. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he can compel her to make thread from wool, since idleness leads to licentiousness. Consequently, it is better for a woman to be doing some kind of work. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who vows that his wife is prohibited from doing any work must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract, since idleness leads to idiocy. GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s choice of terminology the Gemara asks: Could it enter your mind that she grinds the wheat into flour? Ordinarily, grinding is performed in a mill using millstones that are rotated by water or by animals, so the woman herself does not actually grind the wheat. The Gemara answers: Rather, say that she supervises the grinding by bringing wheat to the mill and ensuring that it is ground properly. Alternatively, if you wish, say instead: She can grind the wheat herself with a hand mill. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A wife is only for beauty, and a wife is only for children, but not for household tasks. And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A wife is only for wearing a woman’s finery. And Rabbi Ḥiyya similarly teaches: One who wishes to beautify his wife should clothe her in linen garments, and one who wishes to whiten his daughter so that she will have a fair complexion, should feed her young chickens, and should give her milk to drink toward the time of her maturity. § The mishna mentions among a wife’s obligations that she nurses her child. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman took a vow not to nurse her child, Beit Shammai say: Since she vowed, she must remove her nipple from his mouth and not nurse him. Beit Hillel say: Her husband can compel her, and she must nurse the child even against her will. However, if she was divorced and therefore had no further obligations to her husband, he cannot compel her. Nevertheless, if the baby recognized her, then even after the divorce, her husband may pay her a salary as a wet nurse and compel her to nurse due to the danger that the child will starve if he refuses to nurse from another woman. This baraita indicates that according to Beit Shammai a woman has no obligation to nurse her child. If she had a prior obligation to her husband to nurse the child, the vow would not take effect. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna is also in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, here we are dealing with a case where she made this vow and her husband ratified it for her by refraining from nullifying it. Beit Shammai maintain that in that case it is considered as if he had placed his finger between her teeth, i.e., he caused the vow to be in effect, meaning that in that case the responsibility lies with him. Since he declined the opportunity to nullify the vow, her obligation to nurse is canceled. Beit Hillel maintain that in that case she put her finger between her own teeth, i.e., she caused the vow to remain in effect. Consequently, although he ratified her vow, the responsibility rests on her, and for this reason her obligation is not annulled. The Gemara asks: If so, that the dispute is about who is responsible when a woman vows and her husband ratifies the vow, and it is not specifically about her obligation to nurse her child, then let them dispute about a marriage contract in general, with regard to whether or not a woman is entitled to payment for her marriage contract if she vows to prohibit her husband from deriving benefit from her. And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai explicitly say with regard to all women, not specifically in the context of vows: She does not need to nurse if she does not want to. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara above quotes a baraita where it is taught that if the baby recognized her, her husband can compel her to continue nursing even after she is divorced, but he must pay her for nursing.

ביאור:

משנה: ואלו המלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה: טוחנת, ואופה, ומכבסת, מבשלת, ומניקה את בנה, מצעת לו המטה, ועושה עבודה גם בצמר (בטוויית צמר).

אם הכניסה לו שפחה אחת - הרי הכנסה זו היא כנגד חלק מעבודתה, ומשום כך היא לא טוחנת ולא אופה ולא מכבסת. הכניסה לו שתים (שתי שפחות) - אין מבשלת, ואין מניקה את בנה, אלא נותנת אותו למינקת.

הכניסה לו שלש שפחות - אין מצעת לו המטה, ואין עושה בצמר.

הכניסה לו ארבע שפחות - יושבת בקתדרא. כלומר, יכולה לשבת על כסא כמלכה, ולא לעשות דבר, משום שהשפחות עושות את הכל.

ר' אליעזר אומר: אפילו הכניסה לו מאה שפחות, בעלה כופה (כופה אותה) לעשות עבודה בצמר, משום שהבטלה מביאה לידי זימה, ולכן טוב לה לאשה שתעשה מלאכה כלשהי.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר יותר מכך: אף המדיר את אשתו מלעשות מלאכה — יוציא (יגרש אותה) ויתן לה כתובה. ומדוע -שהבטלה מביאה לידי שיעמום (שיגעון(.

גמרא: על לשון המשנה שואלים:טוחנת סלקא דעתך [עולה על דעתך!?] הרי כרגיל הטחינה נעשית בריחיים גדולות המונעות על ידי מים או בעלי חיים והאשה עצמה אינה טוחנת!

אלא אימא [אמור] מטחנת. כלומר, היא מביאה את החיטים לריחיים ודואגת לטחינתן.

ואיבעית אימא [ואם תרצה אמור]: בריחיא דידא [בריחיים של יד] שהיא עצמה טוחנת.

ומעירים: מתניתין [משנתנו] שלא כדעת ר' חייא, דתני [ששנה] ר' חייא: אין אשה אלא ליופי, אין אשה אלא לבנים, ולא לעשיית מלאכה.

ותני [ושנה] ר' חייא: אין אשה אלא לתכשיטי אשה. ותני [ושנה] ר' חייא: הרוצה שיעדן (ייפה) את אשתו- ילבישנה כלי [בגדי] פשתן.

הרוצה שילבין את בתו (שיהיה לה עור לבן - יאכילנה אפרוחים, וישקנה חלב סמוך לפירקה (לזמן בגרותה).

רבי אליעזר (בן הורקנוס)- מגדולי התנאים בדור השני (מאה ראשונה לספירה, לאחר חורבן בית המקדש השני). תלמידו המובהק של רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. כונה "בור סוד שאינו מאבד טיפה" .

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל- תנא, נשיא הסנהדרין באושא שבגליל, במאה השנייה לספירה , אחרי מרד בר כוכבא . אביו של רבי יהודה הנשיא.

רבי חייא- (רבי חייא הגדול) – חכם בדור המעבר בין תקופת התנאים לאמוראים (מאה שניה לספירה). נולד בבבל ועלה עם משפחתו לא"י.

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/03/05/23/48/holiday-2120259__340.jpg

כתובות ס״א א

ארבע – יושבת בקתדרא:

אמר רב יצחק בר חנניא אמר רב הונא:

אף על פי שאמרו יושבת בקתדרא –

אבל מוזגת לו כוס, ומצעת לו את המטה, ומרחצת לו פניו ידיו ורגליו.

[...]

"רבי אליעזר אומר:

אפילו הכניסה לו מאה שפחות"

אמר רב מלכיו אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: הלכה כרבי אליעזר.

Ketubot 61a
healthy; one who eats eggs will have large-eyed children; one who eats fish will have graceful children; one who eats celery will have beautiful children; one who eats coriander [kusbarta] will have corpulent children; and one who eats etrogim will have sweet-smelling children. It is related with regard to the daughter of King Shapur of Persia, that her mother ate etrogim while pregnant with her and they used to place her in front of her father on top of all the spices, as she was so fragrant. § Rav Huna said: Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana tested us, by asking: If she says that she wants to nurse and he says that he does not want her to nurse but rather to give the child to a wet nurse, we accede to her desires, as she is the one suffering from engorgement of her breasts. However, if he says that he wants her to nurse and she says that she does not want to nurse, what is the halakha? He then narrowed the scope of the question: Anywhere that she is not accustomed, as the women of her family generally do not nurse their children but give them to wet nurses instead, we accede to her desires. However, if she is accustomed to nursing and he is not accustomed, i.e., the women of her family generally nurse their babies but the women in his family do not, what is the halakha: Do we follow his wishes to follow her family custom or do we follow her wishes to follow his family custom? And we answered his question from this amoraic statement: When a woman marries a man, she ascends with him to his socioeconomic status, if it is higher than hers, but she does not descend with him if his status is lower. Consequently, if his family is not accustomed to nurse, she is not obligated to nurse either. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is derived from: “She is a man’s wife” (Genesis 20:3). The Gemara explains: The word used here for “wife [be’ula]” hints through similar spelling that she ascends in status with the ascension [aliya] of her husband but does not descend with the descent of her husband. Rabbi Elazar said: There is a hint to this principle from here: “As she was the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20), which indicates that she was given to her husband for living with him, but was not given to suffer pain with him. § The mishna states that if she brought him one maidservant into the marriage with her, she does not need to grind wheat, bake, or wash clothes. The Gemara infers from this statement that she must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let the wife say to him: I brought you a woman in my place [baḥarikai] who can perform all the tasks I am supposed to do, and the wife should be completely exempt. The Gemara answers: This is not a valid argument because the husband can say to her: This maidservant toils for me and for herself like any other woman, but who will toil for you? It is necessary for the wife to do some work in order to cover some of her own expenses. The mishna further said that if she brought him two maidservants, she does not need to cook and does not need to nurse her child. The Gemara infers: She must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let the wife say to him: I brought you another woman who can toil for me and for herself, and one who can toil for you and for herself. Consequently, I do not need to do any work at all. The Gemara answers: This is also not a valid argument because he can say to her: Who is going to toil for the guests and wayfarers who will come because we are a large household? There are still other tasks that need to be performed. The mishna further said that if she brought him three maidservants, she does not need to make his bed or make thread from wool. The Gemara infers: She must nevertheless perform the other tasks. The Gemara asks: Let her say to him: I brought you another woman to toil for the guests and wayfarers, in addition to one to toil for herself and for me, and another to toil for herself and for you. Therefore, I do not need to do any work at all. The Gemara answers: This is also not a valid argument because he can say to her: When the members of the house increase, the number of guests and wayfarers also increases and therefore there is still more work to be done. The Gemara asks: If so, then even if she brought him four maidservants as well, she should also have to work, as there will be many more guests. But the mishna says that if she brought four maidservants she does not need to do anything. The Gemara answers: When there are four, since there are many of them, they assist one another and can complete all the necessary tasks. Rav Ḥana, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani, said: This does not necessarily mean that she actually brought him maidservants. Rather, once she is able to bring him maidservants, i.e., once her dowry is sufficiently large to buy maidservants, then she is exempt from performing the tasks, although she did not actually bring him maidservants. The Sages taught: Whether she brought him actual maidservants or whether she reduced her own needs in order to release enough money to bring a maidservant to work, she is exempt from the tasks. § The mishna says that if she brought him four maidservants, she may sit in an chair and not do anything. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ḥananya said that Rav Huna said: Although they said that she may sit in a chair and does not need to work, she should still pour his cup; and make his bed; and wash his face, hands, and feet, as these responsibilities are not household tasks that can be delegated to a maidservant. Rather, they are gestures of affection toward her husband. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ḥananya also said that Rav Huna said a similar halakha: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a menstruating woman may similarly perform for her husband, except for: Pouring his cup; and making his bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet. As explained above, these are acts of affection. If she is menstruating she should not perform them, so as not to lead to forbidden intercourse. And With regard to the prohibition against making the husband’s bed, Rava said: We said this only if she made the bed in front of him, but if it was not in front of him, we have no problem with it. With regard to the prohibition against pouring his cup, the Gemara comments: Shmuel’s wife would change her practice toward him during her menstruation period and pour with her left hand, since if she made some change in the manner of pouring, this would serve as a reminder of her status and mitigate the concern that it might lead to intimacy. Abaye’s wife would place his cup on top of a barrel, Rava’s wife would place it on his pillow, and Rav Pappa’s wife would place it on the bench to create a change. § Apropos statements by Rav Yitzḥak ben Ḥananya, the Gemara cites other statements in his name. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ḥananya said that Rav Huna said: All foods may be withheld from before the waiter, as one who is a waiter at the meal must wait until the guests have eaten from every food and only then may he eat, except for meat and wine, as these foods arouse the appetite more and the waiter would suffer if he could not eat them together with the other participants. Rav Ḥisda said: This is referring only to fatty meat and aged wine. Rava said: It applies to fatty meat all year round but aged wine only during the season of Tammuz, in the summer. Due to the heat, the aroma of the wine is more pervasive at that time. Rav Anan bar Taḥalifa said: I was once standing before Mar Shmuel, and they brought him a cooked dish of mushrooms, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered due to the craving that I suffered. Rav Ashi said: I was once standing before Rav Kahana, and they brought him slices [gargelidei] of turnip in vinegar, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered. Rav Pappa said: Even a fragrant date should be offered to the waiter. The Gemara concludes: The principle of the matter is: One should offer some of everything that either has an aroma or that has a sharp taste to whomever is present when it is served, so that no one suffer by being unable to partake of these foods. It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer. Similarly, the Gemara relates an incident with regard to two pious men, and some say they were Rav Mari and Rav Pineḥas, the sons of Rav Ḥisda: One Sage would give the waiter something to eat before the meal, and the other Sage would give the waiter something to eat after the guests had eaten. With regard to the one who gave it to him earlier, Elijah spoke with him. But with regard to the one who gave it to him later, Elijah did not speak with him. The Gemara relates another incident with regard to this matter: Ameimar and Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting at the entrance to the house of King Izgur. The king’s chief butler was passing by with various foods. Rav Ashi saw Mar Zutra’s

ביאור:

שנינו במשנה שאם היו ארבע שפחות הרי האשה יושבת בקתדרא (מושב כבוד) ואינה עושה דבר.

אמר רב יצחק בר חנניא אמר רב הונא: אף על פי שאמרו שהיא

יושבת בקתדרא ואינה צריכה לעבוד, אבל מוזגת לו כוס ומצעת לו את המטה ומרחצת לו פניו ידיו ורגליו. שדברים אלה אינם כחובות של מלאכה, אלא הם דברים של חיבה שהאשה עושה לבעלה, ודבר זה אין מוסרים לשפחה. [.....]

עוד שנינו במשנה, ש ר' אליעזר אומר,

שאפילו אם הכניסה לו אשתו מאה שפחות, מכל מקום תעשה מלאכה, כדי שלא תבוא לידי זימה.

אמר רב מלכיו אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: הלכה כר' אליעזר.

אבן העזר פ׳:י׳

כל אלו המלאכות אין מחייבים אותה

אלה אם כן יהיה דרך משפחתו ומשפחתה לעשותן.

Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 80:10

(10) We do not obligate her in all these labors unless it is the way of his family and her family to do them.

הרב יעקב אריאל, מבנה המשפחה המודרנית (תחומין כב, עמ' 133):

יש חיובים שלמרות שהם חלק מהסכם הכתובה, בכל זאת איש לא יחייב כיום אשה לקיימם, כגון: רחיצת פניו ידיו ורגליו של הבעל או עבודה בצמר וכדו' (עי' שו"ע אה"ע סי' פ).

לעומת זאת יש דברים אחרים שנשים קיבלו על עצמן. למשל, רוב הנשים עובדות כיום מחוץ לביתן. בודאי עבודת האשה מחוץ לביתה פוטרת אותה מהמלאכות שהיתה חייבת בהן בעבר בתוך הבית. אשה העובדת במשרה מלאה מחוץ לבית פטורה מבישול, מכיבוס, מאפייה, מאריגה ומיתר עבודות הבית. רבות מעבודות אלו נעשות היום ע"י מכשירים (האם רק האשה חייבת להפעילם?). חלק מתמלא ע"י קניית מוצרים מוכנים, כגון: בגדים ואוכל מבושל (האם רק האשה חייבת לקנותם?)

הרב יעקב אריאל- (נולד בשנת 1937) – מורה ופוסק, עד לאחרונה שימש כרב העיר ברמת גן ואב בית הדין לדיני ממונות בעיר. כיהן כנשיא ארגון רבני "צוהר".

עיון ודיון:

1. המשנה אומרת: "שלוש – אין מצעת לו המטה, ואין עושה בצמר" - בכך נקבע

שהאישה אינה עושה כל מלאכה. לאור קביעה זו, מה ההבדל בין מעשיה של אישה

שברשותה שלוש שפחות ובין אישה שברשותה ארבע שפחות?

2. ניתן לסווג את המלאכות המוטלות על אישה נשואה לשלושה סוגים: פעולות של קירבה

וחיבה, עבודות משק הבית ועבודה לשם השתכרות. לדעת רבי יצחק בר חנינא, באילו מן הסוגים ניתן להעמיד תחליף לאישה, בהתאם ליכולתו הכלכלית של האיש?

3. חוו דעתכם על עמדתו של רבי חייא כלפי נשים. האם אתם מסכימים או מתנגדים

לדבריו? נמקו!