Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 48 - Highlights

She’eir, Kesus and Onah

It is written [Shmos 21:10] regarding a man’s obligations to his wife: He may not reduce her she’eir, her kesus, or her onah. A braisa is cited which defines these words. She’eir is referring to support. Kesus means clothing. Onah is referring to conjugal relations in their proper time.

Rabbi Eliezer understands these words differently. She’eir is referring to conjugal relations in their proper time. Kesus means clothing. Onah is referring to support.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov explains the words differently. She’eir is written next to kesus to teach us that the husband should provide his wife with clothing that is suitable to her age. Kesus is written next to onah to teach us that he should provide her with clothing according to the season.

Rav Yosef taught the following braisa: Her she’eir implies close bodily contact. This means that he must not treat her in the manner of the Persians who perform their conjugal duties in their clothing. This provides support for a ruling of Rav Huna who stated that a husband who said, “I will not perform my conjugal duties unless she wears her clothes and I mine,” must divorce her and give her a kesuvah also. (47b – 48a)

Flutes and Lamenter
The Mishna had stated: Rabbi Yehudah said: Even the poorest man in Israel may not hire less than two flutes and a wailing woman to lead the mourning at his wife’s burial.

The Gemora infers from here that the Tanna Kamma disagrees and holds that a husband is not required to provide these things for his wife’s funeral.

The Gemora explains the dispute: The Mishna is referring to a case where it is the custom in the husband’s family to have flutes and a wailing woman by the funeral of a woman; however, it is not the custom of the wife’s family. The Tanna Kamma maintains that we say, “A woman rises to the husband’s standards, but does not descend to his standards” only while she is alive, but not after her death. Therefore, the husband is not required to provide the flutes and wailing woman for her burial because it is not his custom. Rabbi Yehudah, however, holds that the principle is applicable even after her death, and he must provide for her burial according to the standards of her family.

Rav Chisda says in the name of Mar Ukva that the halacha follows Rabbi Yehudah. (48a)

Support if he Became Insane or if he Went Overseas
Rav Chisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: If a man became insane, Beis Din takes possession of his estate and provides food and clothing for his wife, sons and daughters, and he also provides something else.

Ravina asked Rav Ashi: Why should this case be different from that which was taught in the following braisa: If a man went to a country overseas and his wife claims that she wants to be provided for, Beis Din takes possession of the husband’s estate and provides food and clothing for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters or for something else?

Rav Ashi replied: Do you not draw a distinction between one who departs intentionally and one who departs without knowing it? (In the case where he went overseas, the man, if he so desired, could have left instructions that his wife and family should be provided for; since, he did not leave any instructions, it is obvious that he had no intention of providing for them. This explains the ruling that his wife, whom he is under a legal obligation to maintain must be provided for by the Beis Din out of his estate; his sons and daughters, however, who have no legal claim upon their father's estate will not be provided for. However, a man who becomes insane, it may well be assumed that it was his wish that both his wife and family shall be properly provided for out of his estate.)

The Gemora asks: What is the “something else” mentioned in the braisa?

Rav Chisda says that it means perfume. (If he went insane, they provide perfume for his wife; however, if he went overseas, they do not.) Rav Yosef says that it is referring to charity. (If he went insane, they tax his property; however, if he went overseas, they do not.)

Rav Chiya bar Avin said in the name of Rav Huna: If a man went to a country overseas, and his wife died, Beis Din takes possession of the husband’s estate and buries her even according to his standard. He is teaching us that that we say, “A woman rises to the husband’s standards, but does not descend to his standards” even after her death. (48a)

Mishna
The Mishna states: She (a bride) always remains under the jurisdiction of her father until she enters the authority of her husband at marriage. If her father delivered her to the agents of her husband (and certainly if he delivered her directly to the husband), she is under the authority of her husband. If her father went with the agents of her husband, or the agents of her father went with the agents of her husband, she remains under the jurisdiction of her father. If the agents of her father delivered her to the agents of her husband, she is under the authority of her husband. (48a – 48b)

“Always”
The Gemora asks: What is the Mishna teaching us when it uses the word “always”?

The Gemora answers: It is coming to exclude that which we learned in a different Mishna. For we learned in a Mishna: If the time arrived (In former times the betrothal (kiddushin) and the marriage (nisu'in) ceremonies were not performed at the same time as is our practice today. Rather it was customary for the bridegroom to first betroth his bride and make her his arusah (betrothed) and only later did he take her to the chupah (bridal canopy) for the marriage ceremony. During the period intervening between the betrothal and the marriage, the arusah lived in her father's house, and the arus was not liable for her maintenance, and if she was the daughter of an Israelite, who had been betrothed by a Kohen, she was not allowed to eat terumah, although, by Torah law, the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a kohen is allowed to eat terumah, as it is written, "But if a Kohen buy any soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it" (Lev. 22:11), and the arusah is an "acquisition" effected by him with the money of the kiddushin, nevertheless, since she lives in her father's home, the Sages prohibited her from eating of the terumah, "lest they pour a cup of terumah for her in her father's home, and she offer it to her brothers and sisters." According to another opinion the prohibition was enacted "because of a blemish," i.e., if he found a physical defect in her, her kiddushin would be considered erroneous, and would be annulled retroactively and thus a non-kohen will have partaken of terumah. This Mishna discusses the case of one who betroths a woman without specifying a marriage date and teaches how they set the marriage date subsequently, and the law regarding an arusah whose bridegroom (arus) does not wed her when the marriage date arrives. Kehati) and they (the virgin or the widow) were not married by the husband, they eat from his food and they eat of the terumah. Our Mishna is teaching us that the halacha is not like that; she never eats of terumah, even if the time designated for nisuin has passed, until the husband marries her. (48b)

Delivery to the Husband
The Mishna had stated: If her father delivered her to the agents of her husband (and certainly if he delivered her directly to the husband), she is under the authority of her husband.

Rav said: She is under the authority of her husband in all respects except for the permission to eat terumah. (Rav maintains that the reason an arusah is prohibited from eating terumah is "because of a blemish," i.e., if he found a physical defect in her, her kiddushin would be considered erroneous, and would be annulled retroactively and thus a non-kohen will have partaken of terumah. Since, in this case, he still has not determined if she has any defects, she is still prohibited from eating terumah.)

Rav Assi said: She is under the authority of her husband in all respects even for the permission to eat terumah. (Rav Assi maintains that the reason an arusah is prohibited from eating terumah is "lest they pour a cup of terumah for her in her father's home, and she offer it to her brothers and sisters." Once she is delivered to her husband’s house, this is not a concern any longer.)

Shmuel said: She is under the authority of her husband only in respect to inheritance (if she died, her husband inherits her dowry).

Rish Lakish said: She is under the authority of her husband only in respect to her kesuvah. Ravina explains this to mean that if her husband died and she marries another man, her kesuvah is only a manah (because it is regarded as if she entered nisuin with her former husband).

The Gemora challenges these opinions from the following braisa: If the father went with the agents of the husband, or if the agents of the father went with the agents of the husband, or if she had a court-yard on the way, and she entered it with her husband to rest there for the night, even if her kesuvah is already in the husband’s house, her father inherits her if she died. If, however, her father delivered her to her husband’s agents, or if her father’s agents delivered her to her husband’s agents, or the husband had a court-yard on the way, and she entered it with him with an intention of nisuin, even if her kesuvah is in her father’s house, her husband inherits her if she died. This ruling was only said in respect of her inheritance, but in respect of terumah, the halacha is that a woman is not allowed to eat terumah until she enters the chupah.

Does not this represent a refutation of all (except for Shmuel)? This is indeed a refutation. (48b)

[END]