These sources explore the foundational role of the household in Jewish life, addressing companionship and marriage, domestic labor and management, the dignity of spouses, livelihood and practical preparation, and the sanctification of home life. Together they present a vision of household life grounded in mutual respect, purposeful work, and spiritual meaning.
לֹא־טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ
Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.
What the sources say
The phrase used in the question, משק ביתי, is rooted in the pasuk describing Eliezer as Avraham's steward, where Rashi (Bereishit 15:2) explains that 'בן משק ביתי' means the one on whose authority the entire household is sustained, an overseer (אפוטרופוס) who would have managed Avraham's affairs had there been no heir. Onkelos (Bereishit 15:2) likewise renders the phrase as 'the manager of my household,' and Midrash Lekach Tov (Bereishit 15:2) preserves the same reading of Eliezer as the one who manages the house. Abarbanel on Torah (Bereishit 15:1:6) probes why Eliezer is called a 'son' of the household management rather than simply its manager, noting the oddity of the term's application.
Other meforshim read the root differently, as longing or gathering rather than management: Ibn Ezra and Ibn Ezra (Bereishit 15:2:2) connect משק to the root שוקק, meaning one who yearns or draws himself and others along, and Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch similarly reads it as one who longs and looks forward, together with his family, to inherit from Avraham. Paaneach Raza (Lech Lecha 39) applies this same reading of משק as longing to Lot rather than Eliezer, who hoped to inherit Avraham.
Beyond the etymology, the sources on the sheet develop the halachic content of a wife's role in running the household. Ketubot 59b lists the tasks a wife performs for her husband — grinding, baking, washing, cooking, nursing, bed-making, and spinning — and ties the scope of her obligation to how many maidservants she brings into the marriage. Ketubot 61a (Ketubot 61a:4-6) and Ketubot 61b (Ketubot 61b:3-4) analyze the boundaries of these obligations, including why she cannot substitute another woman for herself and the exclusion of flax-spinning under Rabbi Yehuda's view. Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 80:1-2 codifies this, ruling that the product of her work belongs to her husband according to local custom, with the Rema adding that this applies specifically where he gives her a weekly stipend.
The corresponding support obligations owed to the wife are laid out in Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 69:2, which lists the ten things a husband owes her — food, clothing, conjugal relations, her ketubah, medical care, ransom, burial, and more — stating that her handiwork corresponds to her sustenance, such that she may opt out of both. Ketubot 64b and Ketubot 47b detail the specific provisions (grain, oil, legumes, bedding, clothing) a husband must supply, and Ketubot 46b and Ketubot 66a address the husband's broader obligations and the division of found property and surplus earnings.
The household is also framed as a domain requiring the husband's active engagement and respect, not merely financial support. Mishneh Torah, Marriage 15:19 instructs a man to honor his wife more than himself and speak to her gently, scaling his generosity to his means, while Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 5:11 teaches that a man of understanding first secures a trade, then a home, then a wife — the opposite order of fools — and Mishnah Kiddushin 4:14 likewise stresses that a father must teach his son a clean and easy trade to sustain himself.
Several sources portray the foundational vision of the household itself: Bereishit 2:18 records that it was not good for man to be alone, so God made him a helper opposite him, and Tehillim 128:1-4 and Mishlei 31:13-14 depict the wife as the fruitful, industrious center of the home, seeking wool and flax and bringing bread from afar. Eruvin 53b illustrates a woman's sharp household wisdom in an anecdote about a hostess outwitting Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, and Ketubot 60b discusses the practical rules governing a wet nurse's diet and conduct within a household arrangement.
The home's peace and provisioning take halachic priority elsewhere as well: Shabbat 23b rules that oil for the Shabbat lamp of one's home takes precedence over oil for a Chanukah lamp or wine for kiddush because of shalom bayit, a ruling codified in Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 263:2-3, which adds that women are more responsible for this since they are present in the home and engaged in its needs. Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 30:6 similarly obligates even a prominent person to personally attend to Shabbat household needs as a matter of honor, and Tanya, Part I; Likkutei Amarim 34:6-7 frames one's earnings and charitable giving from labor as making the home a dwelling place for the Divine presence.
משלי ל״א
Proverbs 31:13-14
The Woman of Valor poem portrays a household managed through diligence, commerce, generosity, foresight, and care for family and dependents.
דָּ֭רְשָׁה צֶ֣מֶר וּפִשְׁתִּ֑ים וַ֝תַּ֗עַשׂ בְּחֵ֣פֶץ כַּפֶּֽיהָ׃ הָ֭יְתָה כׇּאֳנִיּ֣וֹת סוֹחֵ֑ר מִ֝מֶּרְחָ֗ק תָּבִ֥יא לַחְמָֽהּ׃
תהילים קכ״ח:א׳-ד׳
Psalms 128:1-4
The psalm links fear of God with blessing through one’s labor, family flourishing, and children gathered around the household table.
אֶשְׁתְּךָ֤ ׀ כְּגֶ֥פֶן פֹּרִיָּה֮ בְּיַרְכְּתֵ֢י בֵ֫יתֶ֥ךָ בָּ֭נֶיךָ כִּשְׁתִלֵ֣י זֵיתִ֑ים סָ֝בִ֗יב לְשֻׁלְחָנֶֽךָ׃
Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children, like olive saplings around your table.
בראשית ב׳
Genesis 2:18
The creation of woman and the first marriage establish companionship, mutual belonging, and the household as a foundational human institution.
וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹא־ט֛וֹב הֱי֥וֹת הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְבַדּ֑וֹ אֶֽעֱשֶׂה־לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
See also
כתובות נ״ט ב — ד"ה מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ
Ketubot 59b:6-7
The sugya discusses household labor and a wife’s obligations, while also recognizing that domestic arrangements are shaped by custom, circumstance, and negotiated marital expectations.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ: טוֹחֶנֶת, וְאוֹפָה, וּמְכַבֶּסֶת, מְבַשֶּׁלֶת, וּמְנִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ, מַצַּעַת לוֹ הַמִּטָּה, וְעוֹשָׂה בַּצֶּמֶר. הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָה אַחַת — לֹא טוֹחֶנֶת וְלֹא אוֹפָה וְלֹא מְכַבֶּסֶת. שְׁתַּיִם — אֵין מְבַשֶּׁלֶת, וְאֵין מְנִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ. שָׁלֹשׁ — אֵין מַצַּעַת לוֹ הַמִּטָּה, וְאֵין עוֹשָׂה בַּצֶּמֶר. אַרְבַּע — יוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּקָתֶדְרָא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ מֵאָה שְׁפָחוֹת — כּוֹפָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בַּצֶּמֶר, שֶׁהַבַּטָּלָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זִימָּה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה, שֶׁהַבַּטָּלָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי שִׁיעֲמוּם.
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.
כתובות ס״א א — ד"ה הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָה וְכוּ׳
Ketubot 61a:4-6
The Talmud details reciprocal marital duties, including domestic service and conjugal obligations, as part of the legal structure of Jewish family life.
הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָה וְכוּ׳. הָא שְׁאָרָא עָבְדָא. וְתֵימָא לֵיהּ: עַיֵּילִית לָךְ אִיתְּתָא בַּחֲרִיקַאי! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לַהּ: הָא טָרְחָא לְדִידִי וּלְדִידַהּ, קַמֵּי דִידָךְ מַאן טָרַח? שְׁתַּיִם אֵינָהּ מְבַשֶּׁלֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְנִיקָה וְכוּ׳. הָא שְׁאָרָא עָבְדָא. וְתֵימָא לֵיהּ: עַיֵּילִית לָךְ אִיתְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי דְּטָרְחָה לְדִידִי וּלְדִידַהּ, וַחֲדָא לְדִידָךְ וּלְדִידַהּ! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לַהּ: קַמֵּי אוֹרְחֵי וּפָרְחֵי מַאן טָרַח? שָׁלֹשׁ, אֵינָהּ מַצַּעַת הַמִּטָּה. הָא שְׁאָרָא עָבְדָא. וְתֵימָא לֵיהּ: עַיֵּילִית לָךְ אַחֲרִיתִי לְאוֹרְחֵי וּפָרְחֵי! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לַהּ: נְפִישׁ בְּנֵי בֵיתָא, נְפִישׁ אוֹרְחֵי וּפָרְחֵי.
§ 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.
כתובות ס״ד ב — ד"ה מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשְׁרֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל יְדֵי
Ketubot 64b:3-5
Chachmei Bavel’s passage sets minimum weekly provisions and household items for a wife supported through a trustee, including food, bedding, clothing, shoes, and a silver ma’a for personal needs; it also grants her worn garments, a weekly Shabbat meal with her husband, and her earnings if he withholds the ma’a.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשְׁרֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ — לֹא יִפְחוֹת לָהּ מִשְּׁנֵי קַבִּין חִטִּין, אוֹ מֵאַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין שְׂעוֹרִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא פָּסַק לָהּ שְׂעוֹרִין אֶלָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, שֶׁהָיָה סָמוּךְ לֶאֱדוֹם. וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ חֲצִי קַב קִיטְנִית, וַחֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן, וְקַב גְּרוֹגְרוֹת אוֹ מָנֶה דְּבֵילָה. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ — פּוֹסֵק לְעוּמָּתָן פֵּירוֹת מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ מִטָּה, מַפָּץ וּמַחְצֶלֶת. וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ כִּפָּה לְרֹאשָׁהּ, וַחֲגוֹר לְמׇתְנֶיהָ, וּמִנְעָלִים מִמּוֹעֵד לְמוֹעֵד, וְכֵלִים שֶׁל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לֹא חֲדָשִׁים בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, וְלֹא שְׁחָקִים בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ כֵּלִים שֶׁל חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְהִיא מִתְכַּסָּה בִּבְלָאוֹתֵיהֶן בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה. וְהַשְּׁחָקִים — שֶׁלָּהּ. נוֹתֵן לָהּ מָעָה כֶּסֶף לְצוֹרְכָּהּ. וְאוֹכֶלֶת עִמּוֹ מִלֵּילֵי שַׁבָּת לְלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת. וְאִם אֵין נוֹתֵן לָהּ מָעָה כֶּסֶף לְצוֹרְכָּהּ — מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלָּהּ.
MISHNA: If someone feeds his wife by means of a third party serving as a trustee, while the husband himself is not living with her for some reason, he may not give her less than two kav of wheat or four kav of barley a week for her sustenance. Rabbi Yosei said: Only Rabbi Yishmael, who was near Edom, allotted her barley. And he must give her half a kav of legumes, and half a log of oil, and a kav of dried figs or the weight of a maneh of fig cakes. And if he does not have these fruits, he must apportion for her a corresponding amount of fruit from elsewhere. And he must give her a bed, a soft mat, and a hard mat. And he must give her a cap for her head, and a belt for her waist, and new shoes from Festival to Festival, i.e., he must buy her new shoes each Festival. And he must purchase garments for her with a value of fifty dinars from year to year. The mishna comments: And he may not give her new clothes, which tend to be thick and warm, in the summer, nor worn garments in the rainy season, as these are too thin and she will be cold. Rather, he should give her clothes at a value of fifty dinars in the rainy season, and she covers herself with these same worn garments in the summer as well. And the leftover, worn clothes belong to her. In addition to the above, he must give her another silver ma’a coin for the rest of her needs. And she eats with him from Shabbat evening to Shabbat evening. Although he may provide for her sustenance via a third party throughout the week, on Shabbat evening she has the right to eat together with him. And if he does not give her a silver ma’a coin for her needs, her earnings belong to her.
משנה קידושין ד׳:י״ד
Mishnah Kiddushin 4:14
The mishnah presents a model in which a person should teach a child a trade and cultivate a viable livelihood, connecting domestic responsibility with practical preparation.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם יְלַמֵּד אָדָם אֶת בְּנוֹ אֻמָּנוּת נְקִיָּה וְקַלָּה, וְיִתְפַּלֵּל לְמִי שֶׁהָעשֶׁר וְהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין אֻמָּנוּת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת, שֶׁלֹּא עֲנִיּוּת מִן הָאֻמָּנוּת וְלֹא עֲשִׁירוּת מִן הָאֻמָּנוּת, אֶלָּא הַכֹּל לְפִי זְכוּתוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, רָאִיתָ מִיָּמֶיךָ חַיָּה וָעוֹף שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אֻמָּנוּת, וְהֵן מִתְפַּרְנְסִין שֶׁלֹּא בְצַעַר. וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרְאוּ אֶלָּא לְשַׁמְּשֵׁנִי, וַאֲנִי נִבְרֵאתִי לְשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶת קוֹנִי, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁאֶתְפַּרְנֵס שֶׁלֹּא בְצַעַר.
כתובות ס״א ב — ד"ה וְעוֹשָׂה בַּצֶּמֶר
Ketubot 61b:3-4
The passage explains that a wife must spin wool but cannot be compelled to spin flax, particularly Roman flax, and records Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that a husband may compel her to work even if she brought a hundred maidservants; it further distinguishes Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s concern that idleness leads to idiocy from Rabbi Eliezer’s concern that it leads to licentiousness.
וְעוֹשָׂה בַּצֶּמֶר. בְּצֶמֶר אִין, בְּפִשְׁתִּים לָא. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵינוֹ כּוֹפָהּ לֹא לַעֲמוֹד לִפְנֵי אָבִיו, וְלֹא לַעֲמוֹד לִפְנֵי בְנוֹ, וְלֹא לִיתֵּן תֶּבֶן לִפְנֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ. אֲבָל כּוֹפָהּ לִיתֵּן תֶּבֶן לִפְנֵי בְקָרוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵינוֹ כּוֹפָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּפִשְׁתָּן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפִּשְׁתָּן מַסְרִיחַ אֶת הַפֶּה, וּמְשַׁרְבֵּט אֶת הַשְּׂפָתַיִם. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּכִיתָּנָא רוֹמָאָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ מֵאָה שְׁפָחוֹת. אָמַר רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּמִיטַּלְּלָא בְּגוּרְיָיתָא קִיטָנְיָיתָא וְנַדְרְשִׁיר.
§ The mishna says that a wife must make thread from wool. The Gemara infers: She must make thread from wool, but she is not obligated to do so from flax. The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: A husband may not compel his wife to stand before his father and serve him, or to stand before his son and serve him, or to place straw before his animals, i.e., horses and donkeys, but he can compel her to place straw before his cattle, i.e., cows and bulls. Rabbi Yehuda said: He also cannot compel her to make thread from flax, because flax, while it is being spun, causes the mouth to smell foul and the lips to stiffen. The Gemara comments: This applies only to Roman flax, which causes the most damage. § The mishna continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he may compel her to make thread from wool, since idleness leads to licentiousness. Rav Malkiyyu said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. § The mishna says: 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. The Gemara asks: This is essentially the same as the opinion of the first tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, who said that idleness leads to licentiousness. The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case when she plays with small dogs [guriyyata kitanyata] or with games [nadrashir] like chess. Since there is something occupying her she is not in danger of idiocy, but occupying oneself with diversions of this type may still lead to licentiousness.
שבת כ״ג ב — ד"ה אָמַר רָבָא
Shabbat 23b:3
The discussion of household expenses and Shabbat candles emphasizes that domestic resources should be ordered toward peace in the home and the honor of Shabbat.
אָמַר רָבָא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, נֵר בֵּיתוֹ וְנֵר חֲנוּכָּה — נֵר בֵּיתוֹ עָדִיף, מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם בֵּיתוֹ. נֵר בֵּיתוֹ וְקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם — נֵר בֵּיתוֹ עָדִיף, מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם בֵּיתוֹ. בָּעֵי רָבָא: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה וְקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם מַהוּ? קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם עֲדִיף — דִּתְדִיר, אוֹ דִילְמָא נֵר חֲנוּכָּה עֲדִיף — מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא? בָּתַר דְּבַעְיַהּ, הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה עֲדִיף, מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא.
Rava said: It is obvious to me that there is a fixed list of priorities. When a person is poor and must choose between purchasing oil to light a Shabbat lamp for his home or purchasing oil to light a Hanukkah lamp, the Shabbat lamp for his home takes precedence. That is due to peace in his home; without the light of that lamp, his family would be sitting and eating their meal in the dark. Similarly, if there is a conflict between acquiring oil to light a lamp for his home and wine for the sanctification [kiddush] of Shabbat day, the lamp for his home takes precedence due to peace in his home. However, Rava raised a dilemma: When the conflict is between oil for a Hanukkah lamp or wine for kiddush of Shabbat day, what is the ruling in that case? Does kiddush of Shabbat day take priority because it is frequent, i.e., it is performed every week, and there is a principle: When there is a conflict between a frequent practice and an infrequent practice, the frequent practice takes precedence? Or, perhaps the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle? After he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it on his own and he ruled that, in that case, the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle.
כתובות מ״ו ב — ד"ה נִשֵּׂאת — יָתֵר עָלָיו הַבַּעַל
Ketubot 46b:3
The passage states that upon a daughter’s marriage, her husband assumes rights and obligations beyond those of her father, including enjoying her property’s produce and providing her sustenance, redemption, and burial; Rabbi Yehuda adds that even the poorest Israelite must provide two flutes and a lamenting woman for his wife’s funeral.
נִשֵּׂאת — יָתֵר עָלָיו הַבַּעַל, שֶׁאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ, וְחַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, וּבְפִרְקוֹנָהּ, וּקְבוּרָתָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲלִילִין וּמְקוֹנֶנֶת.
If the daughter married, the husband has more rights and obligations than her father had before the marriage, as he consumes the produce of her property during her lifetime, and he is obligated to provide her sustenance, her redemption if she is captured, and her burial upon her death. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman, which it was customary to hire for a funeral, as these too are included in the duties of burial.
כתובות ס״ו א — ד"ה דְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ הִיא
Ketubot 66a:1-3
The passage presents Rabbi Akiva’s view that a wife’s found objects belong to her, paralleling surplus earnings produced through extraordinary effort, while ordinary surplus earnings belong to her husband according to all opinions.
דְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ הִיא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְעַצְמָהּ — מְצִיאָתָהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! דִּתְנַן: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹשָׂה לְפִיךָ״ — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲדִיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ! אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ: מְצִיאַת הָאִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְעַצְמָהּ. וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבַעַל הָוֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לְבַעְלָהּ, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר לְעַצְמָהּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְצִיאָתָהּ כְּהַעְדָּפָה שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק דָּמֵי. פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנַן.
which is categorized as part of her earnings and to which the husband has rights, Rabbi 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 Rabbi Akiva’s opinion with regard to surplus, as we learned in a mishna (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 a woman cannot prohibit her husband from items produced by actions that she is obligated to perform for him. Rabbi Akiva says: He should nullify the vow, lest she produce surplus that is more than the amount that is fitting for him, and the vow will take effect on the surplus, which she is not obligated to provide him. According to Rabbi Akiva, any surplus belongs to her. The Gemara answers: Rather, reverse the opinions: Lost objects found by a wife belong to her husband; Rabbi Akiva says: They belong to her. The Gemara asks: But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, didn’t he say that Rabbi 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. The first tanna holds that the surplus belongs to her husband, and Rabbi Akiva holds that the surplus belongs to her. Apparently, there is no need to reverse the opinions, as Rabbi Akiva acknowledges that there are instances in which surplus belongs to the husband (Rid). The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa said: A lost object found by a wife is comparable to surplus that is produced through extraordinary effort, as this is not a regular occurrence. Therefore, lost objects are subject to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis.
כתובות מ״ז ב — ד"ה חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְכוּ׳
Ketubot 47b:4-5
Chachmei Bavel explain that a husband’s obligations to provide sustenance, redeem his wife from captivity, and arrange her burial were instituted in exchange for his rights to her earnings, the produce of her property, and inheritance of her marriage dowry, respectively; Abaye characterizes these as matching common and uncommon obligations with corresponding rights.
חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תִּיקְּנוּ מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ תַּחַת מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּקְבוּרָתָהּ תַּחַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, לְפִיכָךְ בַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. פֵּירוֹת מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמַיְיהוּ?! חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: תִּיקְּנוּ מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ תַּחַת מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּפִירְקוֹנָהּ תַּחַת פֵּירוֹת, וּקְבוּרָתָהּ תַּחַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ בַּעַל אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תִּיקְּנוּ מָצוּי לְמָצוּי, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי.
§ The mishna teaches that a husband is obligated to provide his wife with sustenance, redemption from captivity, and burial. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Rabbis instituted that a husband must provide his wife with her sustenance in exchange for his rights to her earnings, and similarly they decreed that a husband must tend to her burial in exchange for the fact that he inherits the dowry that she brought into the marriage and which is written in her marriage contract. Consequently, the husband may consume the produce of her property. The Gemara expresses surprise at this last statement: Produce, who mentioned anything about that? The baraita did not previously mention produce at all, so how did it arrive at a halakhic conclusion with regard to produce? The Gemara explains that the baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: They instituted that a husband must provide his wife with her sustenance in exchange for his rights to her earnings; and it is his duty to provide her with redemption from captivity in exchange for his right to consume the produce of her property; and it is his obligation to attend to her burial in exchange for the fact that he inherits the dowry that she brought into the marriage and which is written in her marriage contract. Consequently, a husband may consume the produce of her property. Abaye said: The Sages instituted a common obligation in exchange for a common right, and they instituted an uncommon obligation in exchange for an uncommon right. In other words, the Sages instituted a husband’s obligation to provide his wife with sustenance, which is relevant on a regular basis, in exchange for his right to her earnings, which also applies regularly. The other obligations and rights of a husband are relevant less frequently.
עירובין נ״ג ב — ד"ה אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה
Eruvin 53b:18-20
The passage recounts how a hostess outwitted Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya by pointing out that he should have left some food on his plate on the first two days, in accordance with the Sages’ etiquette.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה: מִיָּמַי לֹא נִצְּחַנִי אָדָם חוּץ מֵאִשָּׁה תִּינוֹק וְתִינוֹקֶת. אִשָּׁה מַאי הִיא? פַּעַם אַחַת נִתְאָרַחְתִּי אֵצֶל אַכְסַנְיָא אַחַת, עָשְׂתָה לִי פּוֹלִין בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן — אֲכַלְתִּים וְלֹא שִׁיַּירְתִּי מֵהֶן כְּלוּם. שְׁנִיָּיה, וְלֹא שִׁיַּירְתִּי מֵהֶן כְּלוּם. בְּיוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי הִקְדִּיחָתַן בְּמֶלַח, כֵּיוָן שֶׁטָּעַמְתִּי — מָשַׁכְתִּי יָדַי מֵהֶן. אָמְרָה לִי: רַבִּי, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינְךָ סוֹעֵד? אָמַרְתִּי לָהּ: כְּבָר סָעַדְתִּי מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אָמְרָה לִי: הָיָה לְךָ לִמְשׁוֹךְ יָדֶיךָ מִן הַפַּת! אָמְרָה לִי: רַבִּי, שֶׁמָּא לֹא הִנַּחְתָּ פֵּאָה בָּרִאשׁוֹנִים? וְלֹא כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין מְשַׁיְּירִין פֵּאָה בָּאִלְפָּס, אֲבָל מְשַׁיְּירִין פֵּאָה בַּקְּעָרָה.
Having discussed the clever speech of various Sages, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said as follows: In all my days, no person defeated me in a verbal encounter except for a woman, a young boy, and a young girl. What is the encounter in which a woman got the better of me? One time I was staying at a certain inn and the hostess prepared me beans. On the first day I ate them and left nothing over, although proper etiquette dictates that one should leave over something on his plate. On the second day I again ate and left nothing over. On the third day she over-salted them so that they were inedible. As soon as I tasted them, I withdrew my hands from them. She said to me: My Rabbi, why aren’t you eating beans as on the previous days? Not wishing to offend her, I said to her: I have already eaten during the daytime. She said to me: You should have withdrawn your hand from bread and left room for some beans. She then said to me: My Rabbi, perhaps you did not leave a remainder of food on your plate on the first days, which is why you are leaving over food today. Isn’t this what the Sages said: One need not leave a remainder in the pot [ilpas], but one must leave a remainder on the plate as an expression of etiquette (Tosafot). This is the incident in which a woman got the better of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya.
כתובות ס׳ ב — ד"ה תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן
Ketubot 60b:11-13
Chachmei Bavel teach that a wet nurse who undertakes to nurse a child may not nurse her own child or another woman’s child alongside him, must eat enough to produce sufficient milk even if her food allowance is small, and must avoid foods harmful to her milk; any additional food required comes from her own funds.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהּ בֵּן לְהָנִיק — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תָּנִיק עִמּוֹ לֹא בְּנָהּ וְלֹא בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. פָּסְקָה קִימְעָא — אוֹכֶלֶת הַרְבֵּה. לֹא תֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ דְּבָרִים הָרָעִים לְחָלָב. הַשְׁתָּא בְּנָהּ אָמְרַתְּ לָא, בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ מִיבַּעְיָא?! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בְּנָהּ הוּא דְּחָיְיסָ[א] עִילָּוֵיהּ מַמְצְיָא לֵיהּ טְפֵי. אֲבָל בֶּן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, אִי לָאו דַּהֲוָה לַהּ מוֹתָר לָא הֲוָה מַמְצְיָא לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. פָּסְקָה קִימְעָא — אוֹכֶלֶת הַרְבֵּה. מֵהֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מִשֶּׁלָּהּ.
§ The Sages taught: If someone gave a child to a wet nurse, and she agreed to nurse him for payment, she may not nurse her own child or another woman’s child together with him, in order that she not take away milk from the child she is being paid to nurse. Even if she fixed a small allowance for food with the payment for nursing, she must nevertheless eat large quantities so that she will have enough milk. And she may not eat together with him, i.e., while she is nursing the child, things that are bad for her milk. The Gemara asks about this baraita: Now that you said that she may not nurse her own child together with her client’s child, is it necessary to say that she cannot nurse another woman’s child? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the prohibition is limited to her child, as there is a concern that since she favors him, she will feed him more milk than the other child, but with regard to another woman’s child, if she did not have surplus milk she would not feed him, and therefore it should be permitted, the baraita therefore teaches us not to distinguish between the cases. The baraita said that even if she fixed a small allowance for food, she must eat large quantities. The Gemara asks: From where should she get this food if the allowance cannot cover it? Rav Sheshet said: From her own funds. Because she accepted an obligation to nurse the child, she must take the necessary steps to fulfill her obligation.
תרגום אונקלוס על בראשית ט״ו:ב׳
Onkelos Genesis 15:2
Avram asks God what He will give him while he remains childless, identifying Eliezer of Damascus as the household’s provider.
וַאֲמַר אַבְרָם יְיָ אֱלֹּהִים מַה תִּתֶּן לִי וַאֲנָא אָזֵיל בְּלָא וְלָד וּבַר פַּרְנָסָא הָדֵין דִּבְבֵיתִי הוּא דַּמַּשְׂקָאָה אֱלִיעֶזֶר:
Avram said: My Master, God, what will You give me since I continue to be childless, and the manager of my household [this supplier who is in my house] is Eliezer of Damascus.
ראש השנה כ״ג א — ד"ה וְלֶיעְבֵּיד אַמָּלֵא
Rosh Hashanah 23a:4
The passage explains that torches were lit for a deficient month rather than only a full month, so people would not refrain from work for two consecutive days around the New Moon.
וְלֶיעְבֵּיד אַמָּלֵא, וְלָא לֶיעְבֵּיד אַחָסֵר כְּלָל! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל מְלָאכָה לָעָם שְׁנֵי יָמִים.
The Gemara asks: And let them perform the ceremony of torches only for a full, thirty-day month, and not perform it for a deficient month at all, in which case there will never be room for error. Abaye said: This cannot be done, because this would lead to a two-day suspension of work for the people, as it was customary to refrain from certain types of work on the New Moon. After a full month there will always be a suspension of work for two days, as the people must abstain from work on the thirtieth of the month in case it is declared the New Moon. However, if the torches are lit for a deficient month, then at least in that case people could return to work the following day. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the torches are lit only for a deficient month.
משנה תורה, אישות פרק טו יז והלאה
Mishneh Torah, Marriage 15:19
Maimonides describes the ideal of a spouse who is loved, honored, and treated with dignity, making mutual respect central to the household.
וְכֵן צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָדָם מְכַבֵּד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפוֹ וְאוֹהֲבָהּ כְּגוּפוֹ. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ מָמוֹן מַרְבֶּה בְּטוֹבָתָהּ כְּפִי מָמוֹנוֹ. וְלֹא יַטִּיל עָלֶיהָ אֵימָה יְתֵרָה. וְיִהְיֶה דִּבּוּרוֹ עִמָּהּ בְּנַחַת. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עָצֵב וְלֹא רַגְזָן:
משנה תורה, דעות פרק ה יא
Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 5:11
Maimonides outlines responsible conduct in eating, drinking, work, and household life, presenting moderation and order as elements of a healthy way of living.
דֶּרֶךְ בַּעֲלֵי דֵּעָה שֶׁיִּקְבַּע לוֹ אָדָם מְלָאכָה הַמְפַרְנֶסֶת אוֹתוֹ תְּחִלָּה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִקְנֶה בֵּית דִּירָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה. אֲבָל הַטִּפְּשִׁין מַתְחִילִין לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אִם תִּמְצָא יָדוֹ יִקְנֶה בַּיִת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בְּסוֹף יָמָיו יְחַזֵּר לְבַקֵּשׁ אֻמָּנוּת אוֹ יִתְפַּרְנֵס מִן הַצְּדָקָה.
See also
משנה תורה, שבת ל א והלאה וראה עוד שבת-סעודה
Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 30:6
Maimonides explains that Shabbat pleasure includes preparing food, arranging the home, and honoring the day through material as well as spiritual means.
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם חָשׁוּב בְּיוֹתֵר וְאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לִקַּח דְּבָרִים מִן הַשּׁוּק וְלֹא לְהִתְעַסֵּק בִּמְלָאכוֹת שֶׁבַּבַּיִת חַיָּב לַעֲשׂוֹת דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן לְצֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁזֶּה הוּא כְּבוֹדוֹ. חֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מֵהֶם מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְפַצֵּל הָעֵצִים לְבַשֵּׁל בָּהֶן. וּמֵהֶן מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְבַשֵּׁל אוֹ מוֹלֵחַ בָּשָׂר אוֹ גּוֹדֵל פְּתִילוֹת אוֹ מַדְלִיק נֵרוֹת. וּמֵהֶן מִי שֶׁהָיָה יוֹצֵא וְקוֹנֶה דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן לְצֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת מִמַּאֲכָל וּמַשְׁקֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ בְּכָךְ. וְכָל הַמַּרְבֶּה בְּדָבָר זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח:
רש"י, בראשית טו ב
Rashi on Genesis 15:2
Rashi explains Avraham's reference to Damascus and connects Eliezer with the household of Avraham and the spiritual influence he received there.
ובן משק ביתי. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ, שֶׁכָּל בֵּיתִי נִזּוֹן עַל פִּיו, כְּמוֹ וְעַל פִּיךָ יִשַּׁק (בר' מלכים א), אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁלִּי, וְאִלּוּ הָיָה לִי בֵן, הָיָה בְנִי מְמֻנֶּה עַל שֶׁלִּי: דמשק. לְפִי הַתַּרְגּוּם מִדַּמֶּשֶׂק הָיָה, וּלְפִי מִ"אַ שֶׁרָדַף הַמְּלָכִים עַד דַּמֶּשֶׂק. וּבַתַּלְמוּד דָרְשׁוּ נוֹטָרִיקוֹן דּוֹלֶה וּמַשְׁקֶה מִתּוֹרַת רַבּוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים:
מדרש לקח טוב, בראשית ט״ו:ב׳
Midrash Lekach Tov, Genesis 15:2
Tobiah Ben Eliezer explains that “בן משק ביתי” refers to a member of Abraham’s household, identifying him as Eliezer, who accompanied Abraham in pursuing kings as far as Damascus.
ובן משק ביתי הוא דמשק אליעזר. ר"ש בן לקיש בשם בר קפרא אמר בן משק בית בר ביתי. הוא דמשק אליעזר שעמו רדפתי מלכים עד דמשק והוא שמו אליעזר. ורבינו ר' אליעזר הקדוש ז"ל אביו של רבינו ר' טוביה. דרש מתוך התלמוד. דמשק. דולה ומשקה מתורת רבו לאחרים שהיה לוקח תורותיו של אברהם אבינו ודרך המצות לעשות צדקה ומשפט ומורה לאחרים. לפיכך נקרא שמו דמשק.
אבן עזרא, ישעיה לג ג
Ibn Ezra
The passage explains that “שוקק” means “אוסף,” citing the phrase “ובן משק ביתי” as a related usage.
שוקק - כמו אוסף, וכן "ובן משק ביתי".
אבן עזרא על בראשית ט״ו:ב׳:ב׳
Ibn Ezra on Genesis 15:2:2
Ibn Ezra explains “משק ביתי” as a doubled verbal form related to “שוקק בו,” comparing its grammatical pattern to “דבק,” and identifies it with “בן משק ביתי,” namely “בן דמשק אליעזר.
משק ביתי, על משקל מכס, והוא מפעלי הכפל, מגזרת "שוקק בו" (ישעי' לג ד), כטעם דֶבֶק בסגול ובן מושך עצמו ואחר עמו, וכן הוא, ובן משק ביתי, הוא בן דמשק אליעזר:
פענח רזא, לך לך ל״ט
Paaneach Raza, Lech Lecha 39
Yitzchak bar Yehudah HaLevi explains that Avraham asks why he should be given a son if someone else will ultimately benefit from him, identifying “the son of my household” as Lot, who hopes and longs to inherit him.
ה' אלקים מה תתן לי, פי' למה זה לך שתתן לי ובן משק ביתי וגו' כלומר ואחר יהנה ממני. ובן משק ביתי זה לוט המקוה ומשתוקק לירש אותי, זהו לשון משק:
אברבנאל על תורה, בראשית ט״ו:א׳:ו׳
Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 15:1:6
Abrabanel asks why Eliezer is called “the son of my household” rather than “the steward of my household” or “the leader of my household,” noting that elsewhere he is called only Abraham’s elder servant and not his household’s son.
השאלה הה' באמרו ובן משק ביתי וגומר והנה בן ביתי וגו'. והוא כי למה זה קרא אליעזר בשם בן היה לו לומר ומשק ביתי הוא דמשק אליעזר וכן והנה משק ביתי או מנהיג ביתי יורש אותי. אבל שם בן אינו מתיחס לבית ולא נאמר באליעזר שם בן כי אם במקום הזה כי כאשר שלחו אברהם לקחת אשה לבנו לא קראו כי אם זקן ביתו ולא קראו בן ביתו:
recovered from “Arukh HaShulchan, Even HaEzer 80”
שולחן ערוך, אבן העזר פ׳:א׳-ב׳ — ד"ה מעשה ידיה שהיא חייבת לבעלה ודיני
Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 80:1-2
A wife is obligated to perform various household tasks for her husband according to local custom and her family's financial means, including spinning, weaving, washing, baking, nursing children, and serving him personally, but these obligations decrease with increased wealth and the acquisition of servants.
מעשה ידיה שהיא חייבת לבעלה ודיני מניקה ושאינה רוצה לעשות מלאכה. ובו י"ח סעיפים: מעשה ידיה לבעלה כיצד הכל כמנהג המדינה מקום שדרכן לארוג אורגת לרקום רוקמת לטוות צמר או פשתים טווה ואם לא היה דרך נשי העיר לעשות כל המלאכות האלו אינו כופה אלא לטוות הצמר בלבד דחקה עצמה ועשתה יותר מהראוי לה המותר לבעל: הגה ודוקא שנתן לה מעה כסף כל שבוע כמו שנתבאר לעיל סי' ע' ויכולה אשה לומר איני נוטלת מעה כסף ואיני נותנת המותר אבל הבעל לא יוכל לומר כך (טור בשם הרמ"ה וכ"כ הר"ן פרק אע"פ וכ"כ השאלתות פרשת משפטים): היה לו ממון הרבה אפי' היה לה כמה שפחות אינה יושבת לבטלה בלא מלאכה שהבטלה מביאה לידי זימה אבל אין כופין אותה לעשות מלאכה כל היום כולו אלא לפי רוב הממון ממעטת במלאכה: וכן כל אשה רוחצת לבעלה פניו ידיו ורגליו ומוזגת לו את הכוס ומצעת לו את המטה (וי"א דמחוייב' להציע כל מטות הבית) (המ"מ פכ"א ובהר"ן פרק אע"פ) ועומדת ומשמשת בפני בעלה כגון שתתן לו מים או כלי או שתטול מלפניו וכיוצא בדברים אלו אבל אינה עומדת ומשמשת בפני אביו או בפני בנו וי"א דוקא באינן סמוכין על שלחן בעלה (ב"י בשם הר"ן פ' אע"פ):
The product of her work belongs to her husband. How [does this work?] All according to local practice. In a place where they [the women] tend to weave, she weaves. ... to embroider, she embroiders. ... to spin wool or linen, she spins. And if the way of the women of the city wasn't to do any of these jobs, he can only compel her to spin the wool. If she pushed herself and made more than enough for herself, the excess [belongs] to her husband. Rem"a: And this is only when he gives her a *ma'ah* of silver each week, as was explained above, in Siman 70. And the woman can say, "I will take the *ma'ah* of silver, and I won't give the excess," but the husband cannot say this. (Tur in the name of the Rem"a, and the Ra"n wrote similarly [on] the chapter [of Talmud Ketubot called] "Even so," and the She'iltot wrote similarly [on] *Parashat Mishpatim*.) If he had a lot of money, even if she had many maidservants, she may not sit idle without work, as idleness brings [one] to immorality. But we do not compel her to do work all day long; rather, in accordance with the abundance of money, she reduces working. And so, every wife washes her husbands, face, hands, and feet for him, and pours him his cup, and makes his bed for him. And there are those who say that she is obligated to make all the beds in the house (The Maggid Mishneh on Chapter 21 and the Ra"n on the chapter [of Talmud Ketubot] called "Even though"). And she stands and serves before her husband, for example, giving him water or a vessel or taking it from him, and things like this, but she does not stand and serve before his father or before his so. And there are those that say that this is only when they are not dependent on her husband's table (Beit Yoseif in the name of the Ra"n on the chapter [of Talmud Ketubot] called "Even though").
שולחן ערוך, אבן העזר ס״ט:ב׳ — ד"ה אלו הן הי' דברים מזונותיה וכסותה
Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 69:2
The laws of a marriage contract frame financial support and domestic security as enforceable components of the marital relationship.
אלו הן הי' דברים מזונותיה וכסותה ועונתה ועיקר כתובתה ורפואתה ולפדותה אם נשבית וקבורתה ולהיות נזונת מנכסיו ויושבת בביתו אחר מותו כל זמן אלמנותה ולהיות בנותיו ניזונות אחר מותו עד שיתארסו ולהיות בניה הזכרים ממנו יורשים כתובתה יותר על חלקם בירושה שעם אחיהם: מעשה ידיה כנגד מזונותיה לפיכך אם אמרה איני נזונית ואיני עושה שומעין לה: הגה וע"ל סימן פ' י"א דכל אשה האומרת איני ניזונית ואיני עושה נתבטלה התקנה ואינה יכולה לחזור בה ולומר אני ניזונית ואני עושה (ב"י בשם הר"ן שכ"כ בשם הרא"ה) ויש חולקין (הר"י כ"ג) וכל שאינה ניזונית אין לה כסות דהוא בכלל המזונות (שם בהר"ן) אבל הבעל שאמר איני זנך ואיני נוטל מעשה ידיך אין שומעין לו (אבל יוכל לומר צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך ומה שאינו מספיק אשלים לך (הר"ן פרק המדיר):
These are the ten: her food, her clothing, her regular sexual relations, the core of her Ketubah, her healing, to redeem her if she is captured, her burial, that she be sustained from his possessions and live in his house after his death the whole time she is a widow, that her children be sustained after his death until they are engaged, that her sons from him inherit her ketubah more than their portion of inheritance that is with their siblings. The work of her hands corresponds to her sustenance. Therefore, if she says "I will not be sustained, and I will not produce" we listen to her. Rema: See further in Section 80. There are those that say that every woman who says "I will not be sustained, and I will not produce", the enactment is nullified, and she can't rescind and say "I will be sustained, and I will produce." (Bet Yosef in the name of the Ran who writes in the name of the Ra'ah) and there are those who disagree (Rabenu Yerucham chapter 23, halacha 5). And all who are not sustained are not obligated to be clothed, which is in the category of sustenance (there in the Ran). But the husband who says "I will not sustain her, and I will not take the work of her hands" - we don't listen to. But, he can say put out [sell] the work of your hands for your food, and what isn't covered I will pay (Ran Ketubot Chapter 7)
See also
recovered from “Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 263:3”
שולחן ערוך, אורח חיים רס״ג:ב׳-ג׳ — ד"ה אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים חייבים להיות
Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 263:2-3
Joseph Karo states that both men and women must light a Sabbath lamp, with women especially responsible; the lamp takes precedence over kiddush and a Hanukkah lamp because it constitutes Shabbat enjoyment and promotes peace in the home.
אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים חייבים להיות בבתיהם נר דלוק בשבת אפי' אין לו מה יאכל שואל על הפתחים ולוקח שמן ומדליק את הנר שזה בכלל עונג שבת הוא: הנשים מוזהרות בו יותר מפני שמצויות בבית ועוסקות בצרכי הבית ואם אין ידו משגת לקנות נר לשבת ולקידוש היום נר שבת קודם וכן אם אין ידו משגת לקנות נר שבת ונר לחנוכה נר שבת קודם משום שלום הבית דאין שלום בית בלא נר (ואם אין ידו משגת לקנות יין לקידוש ולקנות נר לחנוכה ע"ל סימן תרע"ח):
Both men and women must have in their houses an ignited lamp on the Sabbath; even if they have not what to eat they must beg at doors and take oil and light the lamp because this is within the generality Sabbath Enjoyment. Women are more responsible, since they are present in the home and engaged in the household needs. If one lacks means to purchase a Shabbat lamp and kiddush for the day, the Shabbat lamp takes precedence. Similarly, if one lacks means to purchase a Shabbat lamp and a Hanukkah lamp, the Shabbat lamp takes precedence because of peace in the home, since there is no peace without a lamp. (And if one lacks means to purchase wine for kiddush and a Hanukkah lamp, see later Siman 678).
רש"ר הירש, בראשית טו ב
Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch
The passage describes a member of the household who eagerly anticipates inheriting from him together with his family.
ובן משק ביתי - השוקק וצפה עם משפחתו לירשני.
recovered from “Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 123:3”
שולחן ערוך, יורה דעה קכ״ג:כ״א-כ״ב — ד"ה אין דורכין עם העובד כוכבים בגת
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 123:21-22
Joseph Karo rules that one may not tread grapes with an idolater in a vat or tub where wine is normally drawn, due to concern that he may touch and perform libation, while treading together in a trough is permitted; wine treaded by an idolater and collected into a barrel by a Jew is nevertheless forbidden for drinking.
אין דורכין עם העובד כוכבים בגת (או גיגית) (מרדכי ותוספות פ' ר"י ומהרי"ק שורש ל"ב) שמא יגע בידים וינסך ואפילו היה כפות: הגה ואם דרך כל מה שנמשך מכחו ויצא לחוץ נאסר (ב"י) וע"ל סימן קכ"ד והא דאין דורכים עם העובד כוכבים היינו בגיגית או בגת שדרך להמשיך משם היין וגזרינן קודם המשכה אטו לאחר המשכה אבל בעריבה שאין דרך למשוך משם מותר לדרוך עמו וכן לקנות ממנו ענבים דרוכות בעריבה הואיל ואין דרך למשוך בעריבות (מהרי"ק שורש ל"ב ועס"ק מ"ו): עובד כוכבים שדרך היין ולא נגע בו והרי ישראל עומד על גבו וישראל הוא שכנסו בחבית הרי זה אסור בשתייה:
One should not tread grapes with an idolater in a vat (or tub) (Mordechai and Tosafot, Chapter "Rabbi Ishmael," and Maharik, Root 32), lest he touch with his hands and cause libation, even if he were bound. Hagah: And if he did tread, everything that was drawn by his strength and went outside is forbidden (Beit Yosef). And see above, Siman 124. And this—that we do not tread with an idolater—refers to a tub or a vat where it is the way to draw the wine from there, and we decree [a prohibition] before drawing because of [the concern of] after drawing. But in a trough where it is not the way to draw from there, it is permitted to tread with him, and likewise to buy trodden grapes from him in a trough, since it is not the way to draw in troughs (Maharik, Root 32 and see Section 46). An idolater who trod the wine but did not touch it, and a Jew is standing over him and it is the Jew who collected it into the barrel—this is forbidden for drinking.
תניא, חלק ראשון; ליקוטי אמרים ל״ד:ו׳-ז׳ — ד"ה וְאִם יַרְחִיב ה׳ לוֹ עוֹד
Tanya, Part I; Likkutei Amarim 34:6-7
The chapter presents ordinary worldly activity, when directed toward divine service, as capable of becoming part of one’s spiritual vocation rather than an obstacle to it.
וְאִם יַרְחִיב ה׳ לוֹ עוֹד, אֲזַי ״טְהוֹר יָדַיִם יוֹסִיף אוֹמֶץ״, וּ״מַחֲשָׁבָה טוֹבָה כוּ׳״, וְגַם שְׁאָר הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, שֶׁעוֹסֵק בְּמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן, יִהְיֶה מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ, בִּנְתִינַת הַצְּדָקָה שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִיגִיעוֹ, שֶׁהִיא מִמִּדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא – ״מַה הוּא רַחוּם וְכוּ׳״, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתִּיקּוּנִים: ״חֶסֶד דְּרוֹעָא יְמִינָא״. וְאַף שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא חוֹמֶשׁ, הֲרֵי הַחוֹמֶשׁ מַעֲלֶה עִמּוֹ כָּל הָאַרְבַּע יָדוֹת לַה׳, לִהְיוֹת מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתּוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ, כַּנּוֹדָע מַאֲמַר רַבּוֹתֵינוּ־זִכְרוֹנָם־לִבְרָכָה שֶׁמִּצְוַת צְדָקָה שְׁקוּלָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת, וּבְקָרְבָּנוֹת הָיָה כָּל הַחַי עוֹלֶה לַה׳ עַל יְדֵי בְּהֵמָה אַחַת, וְכָל הַצּוֹמֵחַ עַל יְדֵי עִשָּׂרוֹן סֹלֶת אֶחָד בָּלוּל בַּשֶּׁמֶן כוּ׳. וּמִלְּבַד זֶה, הֲרֵי בִּשְׁעַת הַתּוֹרָה וְהַתְּפִלָּה, עוֹלֶה לַה׳ כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָכַל וְשָׁתָה וְנֶהֱנָה מֵאַרְבַּע הַיָּדוֹת לִבְרִיאוּת גּוּפוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּן.
And if G–d will lavish on him in yet a fuller measure, then “He who has clean hands will increase his effort” and “A good intention….” And even the remainder of the day, when he is engaged in commerce, he will provide a dwelling for Him, blessed be He, through the giving of charity out of the proceeds of his labor, which is one of the Divine qualities, “As He is compassionate…,” and as written in the Tikkunim that “Kindness is the right hand.” And even though he distributes no more than a fifth part, this fifth carries the other four parts with it up to G–d to provide a dwelling for Him, blessed be He, as is known from the Rabbinic statement that the commandment of charity is balanced against all the sacrifices. And through the sacrifices all living creatures were elevated to G–d through the offering of one beast, all plants through that of one-tenth of a measure of fine meal mingled with oil, and so on. Apart from this, at the time of study and prayer, there ascends to G–d everything one has eaten and drunk and enjoyed of the other four parts for the health of the body, as will be explained later.
וכן כל אשה רוחצת לבעלה פניו ידיו ורגליו ומוזגת לו את הכוס ומצעת לו את המטה (וי"א דמחוייב' להציע כל מטות הבית) (המ"מ פכ"א ובהר"ן פרק אע"פ) ועומדת ומשמשת בפני בעלה כגון שתתן לו מים או כלי או שתטול מלפניו וכיוצא בדברים אלו אבל אינה עומדת ומשמשת בפני אביו או בפני בנו וי"א דוקא באינן סמוכין על שלחן בעלה (ב"י בשם הר"ן פ' אע"פ): מלאכות אלו עושה אותן היא בעצמה ואפילו היו לה כמה שפחות אין עושין מלאכות אלו לבעל אלא אשתו (ויש מחלוקת בהצעת המטה ועיין למטה סעיף ח'): יש מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה בזמן שהם עניים ואלו הם מטחנת ואופה ומכבסת ומבשלת ומניקה את בנה ונותנת תבן לפני בהמתו אבל לא לפני בקרו: הגה מת בנה אינה מחוייבת להניק בשכר וליתן לו השכר וכן בנו מאשה אחרת אינה מחוייבת להניק (הר"ן פרק אע"פ):
Same passage as Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 80:1-2
דרך ארץ בממונו הוא שיעיין תמיד שיהיה משומר מה שנתן לו השי"ת ושלא יהיה נפסד... ואם אינו בכל יום, מכל מקום יקבע בכל חדש יום אחד, וגם יתבונן במשא ומתן שלו, ואם רואה שההוצאה יתרה מהריוח שמרויח יתבונן לצמצם... האשה תהיה עקרת הבית ותעיין תמיד בכל אשר להם ובמטלטלין להיותן שלמים ונקיים ומיופים ומסוגרים ומשומרים... וקבלה ישנה מאבותי ז"ל שלא להשליך שום חשבון ישן אף על פי שנחשב ונפרע הכל, ואין יוצא עתה מזה החשבון כלום, אלא יהא מונח במקום מוצנע, כי מי יודע מה יולד יום.
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
עבודת - היא כבדה ממעשה, שבו מכיר האדם התועלת, ועבודת אינו מכיר הטעם אלא עושה מצות אדונו, שכרו השקט ובטח, שהוא גדול משלום.
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
אשה משכלת - המנהיגה הבית וההון בשכל.
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
עקרת הבית - האשה ששתתה כוס עקרים והקב"ה ירפא אותה בהשגחתו עד שתהיה אם הבנים שמחה...
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
כל המצוה - כבר התבאר שהחיים הנפשיים והגופניים כב' צרות בבית אחד, ואי אפשר לאדם לפטור אחת מהנה. הא' יפת המראה ורבת הפעלים להכין צרכים ופרנסה, אבל עקרה, וב' עצלה במלאכות אבל בת טובים בעלת שכל ורבת בנים, ולכן חייב האיש הנלבב לפשר ביניהם ולתת לכל אחת די מחסורה...
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
...דרכה של אשה להיות יושבת בתוך ביתה, ודרכו של איש להיות יוצא לשוק ולומד בינה מבני אדם.
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
מציאת האשה ומעשה ידיה לבעלה. ומה היא עושה לו, הכל כמנהג המדינה...
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
Jewish sources explore the phrase "kasha alei preidaschem" (it is hard for Me your separation) as expressing divine attachment to Israel and the spiritual difficulty of parting. Hasidic and medieval commentaries interpret this through the lens of divine compassion, the completion of spiritual repair, and the recognition of dependence on God's kindness.
These sources trace the origin and development of the Shabbat candle-lighting practice from biblical foundations through rabbinic enactment and later codification. They explain the underlying reasons—peace in the home, Shabbat honor, and Shabbat pleasure—and discuss the custom of lighting two candles in correspondence with the two modes of remembering and observing Shabbat.
The Maor VaShemesh (Rabbi Kalonymus Kalman Epstein) presents key Hasidic teachings on spiritual devotion, including the role of self-nullification before the divine will, the purpose of creation as cleaving to God through Torah and mitzvot, the renewal of Torah in each generation through the tzaddik's transmission, the inner journey of spiritual refinement, and the continuous dynamic of spiritual ascent and descent.
These sources examine the halakhic status of bloodstains found on a woman's body or garments, exploring when blood renders a woman ritually impure and prohibited to her husband. The sources address the distinction between Torah law, which requires sensing an emission of blood, and rabbinic decrees extending impurity to unexplained stains, as well as the requirement that blood be in direct contact with flesh rather than external surfaces.
These sources explore the connection between Elul as a season of repentance and spiritual elevation, and Eretz Yisrael as the place where the Jewish people's covenant with God is uniquely expressed and where sins are forgiven. Together they illuminate how the Land serves as the spiritual center for collective teshuvah and divine communion.
These sources explore the principle that every individual has a distinct spiritual connection to Torah suited to their own nature and soul-level. From classical rabbinic sources emphasizing human uniqueness to Hasidic teachings on personal spiritual paths, the materials collectively affirm that authentic Torah study and service must align with each person's singular essence rather than mere imitation of others.