7

Kesubos 6:1 says:

מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, לְבַעְלָהּ. וִירֻשָּׁתָהּ, הוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. בָּשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ, שֶׁלָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר, בִּזְמַן שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר, לָהּ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים, וְלוֹ אֶחָד. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי, לוֹ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים, וְלָהּ אֶחָד. שֶׁלּוֹ, יִנָּתֵן מִיָּד. וְשֶׁלָּהּ, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת: ‏

What a woman finds or produces belongs to her husband. What she inherits, he benefits from it during her life. The payment for her embarrassment or damage goes to her. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira says, if she was damaged or embarrassed in private, she gets 2/3 and he gets 1/3; in public, he gets 2/3 and she gets 1/3. He gets his part right away. Her part goes to buy land, and he gets to benefit from it.

The Shulchan Aruch follows R' Yehuda ben Beseira and says that the payment gets split in this way.

I'm having trouble understanding why the payment for embarrassment gets split. The Gemara has a short piece about why embarrassing a man's wife is like embarrassing the man himself, and I can understand why he gets paid. I would have thought though that his payment would be in addition to hers. Why does that come out of her payment? Is she somehow less embarrassed because he's around?

| improve this question | | | | |
5

The Ran [on the side of the Rif in Kesuvos 65b] asks this question.Ran Kesuvos 65b

If I understand his answer correctly, he says that since the husband is also embarrassed, that reduces his wife embarrassment proportionately.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • Great catch. This answer is very hard to accept because 1) The embarrassment cause to the husband is Grama 2) Why her embarrassment is lessen after marriage? 3) Why would the husband embarrassment will be exactly equal to her embarrassment reduction? – Alaychem Remember Monica Aug 7 '19 at 15:06
  • 1
    @Alaychem אשתו כגופו, which the Gemara brings up, might help with grama – Heshy Aug 7 '19 at 15:39
  • @Heshy Thought of it, if you were right, it would be split 50%-50% at any case. – Alaychem Remember Monica Aug 7 '19 at 18:20
  • @Alaychem No, not what I meant. I'm applying אשתו כגופו only to the extent that when her embarrassment also affects him, it's not a grama anymore, because it's as if he was embarrassed directly. But he still has to be personally embarrassed (which he is). – Heshy Aug 7 '19 at 18:35
-1

IMHO the answer lies here:

נדרים פא ב

אמר מר ושלא אשמש מטתי יפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה היכי דמי אילימא דאמרה הנאת תשמישי עליך למה לי הפרה הא משועבדת ליה אלא באומרת הנאת תשמישך עלי

One sage said: (If a wife vows) not to have sex (with her husband) - the husband can nullify the vow - It's a vow is in the context of their relationship. How is it? If she said "I forbid you to enjoy from sex with me" - why should he (to nullify, it's needless)? She (her body) owned by him, but she was saying "I forbid myself the enjoyment from sex with you"...

Nedarim (vows) are 'attached' to real, physical object. That means that the husband has some ownership on his wife's body (and vice verse, BTW).

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • This Gemara also answers this !!! – Alaychem Remember Monica Aug 22 '19 at 9:33
  • 1
    Why do you translate משועבד as ownership? It's something more like mortgaged or enslaved – Double AA Aug 22 '19 at 12:13
  • @DoubleAA 'mortgaged' is wrong, because there is no debt,and I didn't choose 'enslaved' because that's not slavery. To my limited understanding, Aramaic and English wording here are not parallel here. – Alaychem Remember Monica Aug 22 '19 at 13:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .