Study Ketubot folio 66A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
which is categorized as part of her earnings and to which the husband has rights, R' Akiva says the surplus belongs to her, then with regard to lost objects that she found, which are unrelated to her handiwork, do they not all the more so belong to her?
That is R' Akiva’s opinion with regard to surplus, as we learned in a Mishnah (Nedarim 85a): With regard to a woman who said to her husband: Anything that I produce will be konam, i.e., forbidden like an offering, to your mouth, he need not nullify the vow. The vow never took effect at all because
The Talmud asks: But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, didn’t he say that R' Yoḥanan said: With regard to surplus that is not produced through extraordinary effort, everyone agrees that it is the husband’s. Where they disagree is in a case of surplus that is produced through extraordinary effort.
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: In a case where she performed two tasks for him simultaneously, what is the halakha; is the status of the earnings the same as surplus produced through exertion? Similarly, Ravina raises a dilemma: In a case where she performed 3 or 4 tasks simultaneously, what is the h
§ The Mishnah states that payments for her humiliation and for her degradation belong to her, but that R' Yehuda ben Beteira holds that the husband receives a portion of the compensation. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan strongly objects to this: If that is so according to R' Yehuda ben Beteira, then if one humil