Monday, September 03, 2007

Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 3 - Highlights

Rava’s Reasoning
The Gemora concludes that Rava used his own logic for his ruling. Biblically, if the husband does not return due to an accident, the get is not valid; however, the Rabbis, because of their concern for the modest and the brazen woman, declared that the get is indeed valid. The Gemora explains the concern for the modest woman: If you will say that it should not be a divorce, there might be times where the husband was not held back by an accident, but she would think that he was held back by an accident and she will remain unmarried as an agunah. The Gemora explains the concern for the brazen woman: If you will say that it should not be a divorce, there might be times where the husband was held back due to an accident, but she will say that he willingly did not return, and she will go and get married to another man, and later, when the husband returns (and we will realize that he was held back due to an accident), the get will be invalid and the children will be mamzeirim. (2b – 3a)

Kiddushin is Based on the Rabbanan

The Gemora asks, is there any kind of get (halachic divorce document) that the Torah says is invalid, and due to the concern regarding modest or brazen women, we will permit the men in the world to marry what is essentially a married woman?! The Gemora answers that yes, it is possible, as there is a principle that whoever effects kiddushin does so based on the standards of the Rabbanan. The Rabbanan took away the kiddushin from this man (and therefore the woman is not married, although she never received a get).

Ravina asked Rav Ashi: this makes sense regarding a kiddushin effected with money. [This is because the Rabbanan can assume the power of Beis Din to make the original money of kiddushin “hefker” – “ownerless.” Therefore, it is as if the original kiddushin was invalid as it was not done with his money.] However, how can they negate a kiddushin effected through marital relations? Rav Ashi answered that the Rabbanan essentially say that his marital relations are considered (akin to) promiscuity, not relations that acquire a woman for kiddushin. (3a)

Another Version of Rava

Rava says “And so too regarding gitin.” This indicates that Rava understands that there is a claim that one was delayed by circumstances beyond his control (and therefore did not fulfill his condition regarding the giving of his get).

The Gemora asks that the Mishna states that if someone says “this is your get if I do not come back within twelve months” and he died within twelve months, the get is invalid. This implies that only if he died is the get invalid, but if he fell sick (and could not come back) it is valid. The Gemora answers, really we can say that if someone fell sick it is not a get. The Mishna is telling us the sole teaching that there is no concept of get after someone dies.

The Gemora asks, the concept that there is no get after someone dies was already taught in the first part of this Mishna! The Gemora answers, perhaps this was too exclude the opinion of Raboseinu (see 2b).

The Gemora further tries to prove this point (from the end of the aforementioned Mishna). If the person says “(this is your get) from now if I do not come back within twelve months,” and he dies within twelve months, the get is valid. It must be that the same law applies if he got sick (and could not return, which is unlike the opinion of Rava). The Gemora answers that no, this specifically applies to a case where he died, as he does not want her to have to fall to yibum (if he dies).

The Gemora asks from a case where a person said that if he does not return within thirty days the get should be valid. He arrived at the end of the thirty days, but the river prevented him from arriving back (on time, as the ferry was not present at the time). He was saying “You see that I am coming! You see that I am coming!” Shmuel said that this is not called that he reached the city (and therefore the get takes effect). The Gemora answers that a forced circumstance that is common is different, as he should have made a condition beforehand (that if he comes back but cannot cross the river in time it is not included). The fact that he did not is his own loss. (3a)
Getting Married on Other Days

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak says that our Mishna is only discussing a case in the time of the decree of Ezra and on, that since then Beis Din is not permanently is session on days other than Monday and Thursday. However, before the decree of Ezra that Beis Din was in session every day, a woman could get married on any day. The Gemora asks, why is Rav Shmuel discussing the days before the decree of Ezra? Whatever happened, happened then (and is irrelevant now)! The Gemora answers that this is what he is saying. If there is a situation where Beis Din is in session every day of the week nowadays as they were before the decree of Ezra, a woman can get married any day. (3a)

The Gemora asks, don’t we need to fulfill the decree of “Shakdu” (that a husband should prepare for the wedding meal for the first three days of the week)? The Gemora answers that it is alright as long as he prepares.

The Gemora asks, what is the source of “Shakdu?” The Gemora answers that the Braisa states, why did they institute that a virgin should get married on Wednesday? In order that if he had a claim that he did not find besulim, he would wake up early and go to Beis Din (see 2a). The Gemora asks, let her get married on Sunday, and if he has a claim that he did not find besulim he could similarly wake up early and go to Beis Din Monday morning? The Gemora answers, the sages insisted for the good of Jewish girls that a person should be involved in preparing a wedding meal for three days: Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. He should marry her on Wednesday. From the period of danger and on, the people had the custom to marry her off on Tuesday, and the sages did not protest against them. On Monday one should not marry, and if he did so due to the forced circumstances it is permitted. We separate the groom from the bride on Shabbos night from having their first marital relations because this causes a wound. (3a – 3b)
The Definition of Danger

What is the danger (referred to in the Braisa above)? If it was declared by a government that if a virgin marries on Wednesday she will be killed, why does the Braisa merely state that “they started a custom (to get married on Tuesday)?” We should totally uproot getting married on Wednesday! Rabah says that it is because the government said that a virgin who gets married on Wednesday must first have relations with the hegmon (governmental officer).

The Gemora asks, is this considered a danger? It is called a forced circumstance! The Gemora answers that there were some modest girls who would insist that they would rather be killed, and this led to a life-threatening situation. The Gemora asks, let it be told to them that under forced circumstances this is permitted? The Gemora answers that there are also some immodest women (and if we tell them this is permitted they will cooperate willingly, and this will mean that they are forbidden to their husbands). Additionally, the Gemora explains, some of these women are wives of Kohanim (who become forbidden to their husbands even through rape, see Rashi). The Gemora asks, so let us uproot getting married on Wednesdays? The Gemora answers that the decree will eventually be cancelled, and we do not uproot the decree of the Rabbanan before such a decree.

The Gemora asks, if so (they will switch to Tuesdays) on Tuesdays also the Hegmon will come to have relations! The Gemora answers that (being that the Hegmon is unsure if there will be a wedding on Tuesday) he will not travel to town in such a doubtful circumstance.

On Monday one should not marry, and if he did so due to the forced circumstances it is permitted. What is the forced circumstance? If it is the circumstance we have just discussed, there it is called a danger and here it is called a forced circumstance?! Additionally, there it says that they switched the custom to Tuesday, and here it says that it is permitted! Rava says that the forced circumstance here is that officers of the army come to town (to steal the wedding food).

What is the case? If they come (on Wednesday) and leave (that Wednesday), let the wedding be delayed (and held on the next Wednesday)! The Gemora answers that the case is where they come to settle in town on a Wednesday. The Gemora asks, so let the marriage be held on Tuesday? The Gemora answers that the officer’s servants arrive ahead on Tuesday (to gather provisions for the officer and his troops). (3b)