Ketubot 65: Providing for Wives; Providing for Very Young Children

Are women given wine when they are provided with sustenance?  Enough for cooking?  Enough for drinking?  How much wine is alright for a woman to drink, anyhow?  Through their conversations and their examination of the story of Hannah, we learn that the rabbis believe that women become drunk after two cups of wine; at three cups we will ask for intercourse publicly. After four cups, though, we will solicit sex even with a donkey, for we are indiscriminate at that point of intoxication.  Thus as long as a woman's husband is with her, any amount of alcohol is permitted.  And to that end, intercourse is permitted in the home of someone else as long as there is privacy and the host's bed is not used (because of the risk of soiling the sheets).

We learn about Choma, who was widowed by three husbands.  After her third husband, Abaye, died, Choma went to Rava to request sustenance, including wine.  She insisted that Abaye gave her wine, and while demonstrating the size of the cup, her beautiful arm could be seen by the court.  It was as if a light shone in the courtroom.   Rava left the court and requested intercourse from his wife.  This led to his wife, the daughter of Rav Chisda, becoming jealous - so jealous that she chased Choma from the town, accusing her of trying to steal her husband (and possibly kill him).

The rabbis share a number of examples of women, wine and the unleashing of women's insatiable sexual desire.

Women are entitled to a bed, a hard mat, and a soft mat.  The rabbis explain that the bed might be made of ropes and thus uncomfortable without a mat atop the basic structure.  We also learn that the rabbis argue about whether or not a poor woman should be given a pillow and a cushion.  If she is not accustomed to such comforts, why should they be mandated?  The rabbis argue that a woman of any means might require a pillow and cushion in some circumstances.  Much of what men are required to provide depends upon a woman's social status.  It would seem that social status is maintained; however, we have learned earlier that women can raise a man's social status through marriage but a woman cannot 'lose' her social stays through marriage.

Regarding the requirement that a husband or his heirs provide a wife with shoes three times each year, a cap, and 50 dinars annually, Rav Pappa makes a telling comment.  He says that the tanna has created a bizarre situation where a woman is standing naked in new shoes.  In my mind, this seems like an excuse to picture a woman standing naked in new shoes.

The rabbis remind us that fifty dinars would be exorbitant for poor husbands and next to nothing for the wealthy.  Perhaps these dinars were simple dinars; perhaps they were referring to silver coins.  The rabbis agree that each case should be considered individually to determine how much money a husband should provide to his wife for her annual substance.

If a woman has leftover, worn out clothing, they belong to her.  However, if she is widowed, that clothing belongs to her husband's heirs.  She is not to wear her worn clothing in her husband's presence, however.  Worn clothing is reserved for use while she is menstruating, and her husband might find her repulsive if he notices her wearing that worn clothing.  This would suggest that "niddah" does not translate only as 'forbidden', but as dirty, undesirable, and 'less-than'.

The rabbis argue about the silver me'a that is given to a woman each week.  A woman is to eat with her husband.  Is this referring to food or to sexual relations?  The rabbis find proof texts for their different opinions.  

Using Ulla the Great's words as a proof text, the rabbis determine that children up to the age of six are considered to be "very young ones" who must also be sustained.  As well, the rabbis note that children until the age of six can be covered by their mother's eiruv.  Notable is that their mother's eiruv and not their father's eiruv is mentioned; this is because children are subservient to their mothers.

Regarding nursing mothers who are provided with more sustenance, the rabbis wonder about the reason. IS this because women are feeding two people when they nurse?  Or is this because women are considered to be 'ill' when they are nursing and must be provided for according to the rules of caring for the ill?  If the latter option were the case, fathers would not be considered to be providing for the needs of their very young children - they would be caring for the mother herself while she nurses. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches us that wine is provided to nursing women because wine is good for milk.  This would suggest that the father is in fact providing for the sustenance of his child with his extra payment.