However, according to the one who says the rebellion is against performing tasks, is an ill woman fit to perform tasks? Since she is ill, she has no obligation to perform tasks and this is not deemed rebellious behavior. Rather, one must explain this as follows: If she rebelled against engaging in marital relations, everyone agrees that she is defined as a rebellious woman. They disagree with regard to one who rebels against performing tasks. One Sage, Rav Huna, holds that one who rebels against performing tasks is not a rebellious woman, and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, holds that one who rebels against performing tasks is also considered a rebellious woman.

§ With regard to the matter itself: A woman who rebels against her husband is fined; we reduce her marriage contract by seven dinars each week, and Rabbi Yehuda says: Seven terapa’ikin. Our Sages went back and were counted again, meaning they voted and decided that instead of deducting a small amount from her marriage contract each week, they would make public announcements about her for four consecutive Shabbatot. And they decided that the court would send messengers to her to inform her: Be aware that even if your marriage contract is worth ten thousand dinars, you will lose it all if you continue your rebellion. If she does not retract her rebellion, she forfeits her entire marriage contract. With regard to this enactment, it is the same to me, meaning the halakha does not change, if she is a betrothed woman or a married woman, and even if she is a menstruating woman, and even if she is ill, and even if she is a widow awaiting her yavam to perform levirate marriage.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said to Shmuel: Is a menstruating woman fit to engage in conjugal relations? He said to him: One who has bread in his basket, i.e., one who knows that he will be able to engage in relations with his wife after her period of menstrual impurity ends, is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket.

Rami bar Ḥama said: We make announcements about her only in synagogues and study halls, but not in the street. Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: They would make announcements on four consecutive Shabbatot, which are days when no labor is performed and people are not to be found in the streets, but rather in synagogues and study halls. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that this is the case. Rami bar Ḥama said: The court sends people to talk with her twice, once before the announcement and once after the announcement.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught with regard to this: The halakha is in accordance with the decision of our Sages. Rava said: This is an absurdity [burkha]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: What is absurd about this? I said this to him, and I said it to him in the name of a great man. And who is the great man who ruled this way? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.

The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion does Rava hold? The Gemara answers: In accordance with that which was stated: Rava said that Rav Sheshet said: The halakha is that she is consulted in an attempt to convince her to retract her decision, and while doing so deductions are made from her marriage contract. But Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: The halakha is that we do not consult with her. According to both versions of Rav Sheshet’s ruling, she does not lose her marriage contract immediately but rather it is reduced every week. This is the source for Rava’s opinion.

§ With regard to this halakha, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which the halakha of a rebellious woman applies? Ameimar said: The case is where she says: I want to be married to him, but I am currently refusing him because I want to cause him anguish due to a dispute between us. However, if she said: I am disgusted with him, we do not compel her to remain with him, as one should not be compelled to live with someone who disgusts her. Mar Zutra said: We do compel her to stay with him.

It is related: There was an incident in which a woman rebelled, claiming that she was disgusted with her husband, and Mar Zutra compelled her to stay with him. And from this couple issued Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura. This demonstrates that even such coercion can cause a blessing. However, the Gemara concludes: That is not so. That case should not serve as a precedent, as there the positive outcome was due to heavenly assistance. Ordinarily, nothing good results from conjugal relations that the wife does not desire.

It is related that the daughter-in-law of Rav Zevid rebelled against her husband. She was holding a certain garment in her hands. Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting, and Rav Gamda was sitting with them. They sat and said: If a woman rebelled, she lost her right to her worn clothes, meaning she has forfeited the clothes she brought with her for her dowry even if they are still in existence. Rav Gamda said to them: Because Rav Zevid is a great man, are you willing to flatter him with regard to this halakha? Didn’t Rav Kahana say: Rava raises a dilemma about this issue with regard to worn clothes, and he did not resolve it? Yet you reached a decision out of respect for Rav Zevid. This is inappropriate. There are those who say that this incident happened differently, as these three Sages sat and said: If she rebelled, she did not lose her right to her worn clothes. Rav Gamda said to them: