This tanna creates a bizarre situation in which the woman is left naked but wearing shoes, as the husband must give his wife shoes three times a year but new clothing only once a year. Abaye said to him: The tanna is standing, i.e., speaking of, a mountainous region, in which she cannot do without three pairs of shoes, as shoes wear out quickly in hilly areas. And in passing, the tanna teaches us that he should give them to her on a Festival, so that she will rejoice in them during the Festival.

§ The mishna teaches: And he must give her clothes with a value of fifty dinars. Abaye said: This is referring to fifty simple [peshitei] dinars, used as the money of the state, which are worth only one-eighth of Tyrian dinars. From where did Abaye derive this? From the fact that it teaches: In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to the poorest of Jews. However, in the case of a prominent man, all the amounts are increased in accordance with his prominence. And if it enters your mind that the mishna means literally fifty dinars, from where would such a poor man get fifty dinars? How could a pauper afford to give such a large sum to his wife for her clothing? Rather, learn from this that the mishna is referring to fifty simple dinars.

§ The mishna further states: And he may not give her new clothes in the summer, nor worn garments in the rainy season, and the leftover, worn clothes belong to her. The Sages taught: Leftover sustenance belongs to the husband, whereas leftover, worn clothes belong to the wife. The Gemara asks: With regard to the statement that worn clothes belong to the wife, why does she need these old clothes? Raḥava said: She requires them, as she covers herself with them during her days of menstruation, so that she does not become repulsive to her husband. If she wears her normal clothes when she is menstruating, he will later be disgusted by her.

Abaye said: We have a tradition that the leftover, worn clothes of a widow belong to the husband’s heirs. The reason is that it is only in that case there, concerning a woman whose husband is alive, that the reasoning so that she does not become repulsive to her husband can be applied. Whereas here, when he is dead, let her become repulsive. There is no need to ensure that she find favor in the eyes of his heirs.

§ The mishna teaches that he gives her a silver ma’a, and she eats with him from one Shabbat evening to the next. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: She eats, in this context? Rav Naḥman said: It means literally that she eats with him once a week. Rav Ashi said: This is referring to sexual relations.

The mishna states: And she eats with him from Shabbat evening to Shabbat evening. Granted, according to the one who says that it means actual eating, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: She eats. However, according to the one who says that it is referring to sexual relations, what is the meaning of: She eats? The Gemara explains: It is a euphemism, as it is written: “So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says: I have done no wickedness” (Proverbs 30:20).

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, disagreeing with the tanna of the mishna: She eats on Shabbat evening and on Shabbat. Granted, according to the one who says that it means actual eating, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: And Shabbat, i.e., she dines with him also on the day of Shabbat. However, according to the one who says that it is referring to sexual relations, are there sexual relations on the day of Shabbat? But didn’t Rav Huna say: The Jewish people are holy and therefore do not engage in sexual relations during the day? The Gemara answers that Rava said: If they are in a dark house, it is permitted to engage in relations even during the day.

§ The mishna teaches: And if she is nursing, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. Rabbi Ulla the Great taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi: Although the Sages said that a person is not obligated to sustain his sons and daughters when they are young, still, he must sustain the very young ones.

The Gemara asks: Until when are they considered very young? Until the age of six, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said: A six-year-old minor may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv, if she prepared an eiruv on one side of the city. He is included in his mother’s eiruv rather than that of his father, as he is considered subordinate to his mother.

The Gemara asks: From where is this halakha that Rabbi Ulla taught derived? The Gemara explains that it is derived from the fact that it teaches: If she is nursing, the required amount is reduced from her earnings and is added to the sum she receives for her sustenance. What is the reason for this? Is it not because the baby needs to eat together with her? This shows that a father is responsible to provide for his young child. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps he increases her sustenance not due to the baby but because she is considered ill due to her weakness while nursing, in which case the obligation stems from his obligation to his wife, not to his child.

The Gemara retorts: If so, let the mishna teach: If she was ill. What is the reason that it specifies: If she was nursing? The reason for this halakha must certainly be due to the child. The Gemara again rejects this answer: But perhaps the mishna teaches us this, that in an ordinary situation, nursing women are considered ill, and that a husband must increase the sustenance all the more so if his wife is actually ill. Consequently, this does not prove that a father is obligated to sustain his very young child. It was stated that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Wine is added for a nursing woman, as wine is good for milk.

May we return to you chapter “Even though.”

MISHNA: A lost object found by a wife and the wife’s earnings belong to her husband. And with regard to her inheritance, the husband enjoys the profits of this property in her lifetime. If she is humiliated or injured, the perpetrator is liable to pay compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as relevant. This payment belongs to her.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When it is an injury that is in a concealed part of the woman’s body, she receives two parts, i.e., two-thirds, of the payment for humiliation and degradation, and the husband receives one part, i.e., one-third, as the injury affects him as well. And when it is an injury that is in an exposed part of her body, he receives two parts, as he suffers public humiliation due to her condition, and she receives one part. His payment should be given to him immediately. And with her portion, land should be purchased with it, and he enjoys the profits of that property.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (46b) that the father is entitled, in the case of his daughter, to authority over her betrothal, whether it is effected with money, with a document, or through sexual intercourse. Furthermore, as long as she is single, her father is entitled to any lost object that she finds, and to her earnings, and to effect nullification of her vows (see Numbers, chapter 30). Her father also receives her bill of divorce on her behalf, but he does not enjoy the profits of her property in her lifetime. If she is married, the rights of the husband are greater than his, as the husband enjoys the profits of her property in her lifetime. What, then, is the mishna teaching beyond that which was taught elsewhere?

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the halakhot concerning compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as ownership of these payments is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis.

§ A tanna teaches a baraita before Rava: A lost object found by a wife belongs to her; Rabbi Akiva says it belongs to her husband. Rava said to that tanna: This baraita is puzzling. Now, if, with regard to the surplus of the wife’s earnings beyond the minimum sum stipulated by the Sages,