Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 82 - Highlights

Delayed Kinyan

The Gemora records an incident: A yevamah fell to a yavam in Masa Mechasya. His (younger) brother wanted to disqualify her for yibum by giving her a letter of divorce. The elder brother said to him, “What is it that you have in your mind? Are you troubled because of the property that I am destined to inherit, I will share the property with you.” The younger brother replied, “I am afraid that you will treat me as the Pumbedisean rogue treated his brother.” (The people of Pumbedisa were known for being deceivers; in the incident cited above, the yavam refused to give up the land and then, Rav Yosef ruled like him.) The yavam said to him, “If you wish, you may take your half at once.”

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Although when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisroel, he stated in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: If a man said to another, “Go and pull this cow, but it shall only become your legal possession after thirty days,” he legally acquires it after thirty days, even if it is standing at the time (after thirty days) in a swamp. That is because the giver had the ability to transfer possession of the cow at the initial time. However, in this case, the younger brother cannot acquire possession of the promised share, for it is not in his power to transfer immediate possession (since prior to yibum, the yavam has no rights on his brother’s land).

The Gemora asks: But, surely, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisroel, he reported in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that he does not acquire possession (in the case of the cow)?

The Gemora answers: This is no difficulty: The first ruling refers to a case where the seller said, “Acquire possession from now,” whereas the other ruling refers to a case where he did not say, “Acquire possession from now.” (82a)

Emend the Mishna

The Mishna had stated: The Chachamim said: The produce which is connected to the ground belongs to the yavam.

The Gemora asks: But why does it belong to him? Aren’t all of the brother’s properties pledges for her kesuvah?

Rish Lakish says that the Mishna must be emended to read that the produce belongs to her. (82a)

Just Like a Wife
The Mishna had stated: Once the yavam marries her, she is regarded as his wife in all respects.

The Gemora asks: Regarding what halacha is the Mishna referring to?

Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Chanina said: This teaches us that the yavam may divorce her with a get, and he also can remarry her afterwards.

The Gemora asks: Isn’t it obvious that he may divorce her with a get?

The Gemora answers: Since the verse [Devarim 25:5] states: The yavam shall cohabit with her, and take her to himself as a wife, and perform yibum with her; one might think that she is always regarded as his yevamah even after marrying her, and perhaps she would require a chalitzah to be released from him. The Mishna teaches us that a get is sufficient.

The Gemora asks: Isn’t it obvious that he may remarry her afterwards?

The Gemora answers: One might have thought that after he fulfilled his mitzvah and subsequently divorced her, she should become subject to the prohibition of being a brother’s wife and she should be forbidden to him; the Mishna teaches us that once she becomes permitted to him, she remains that way. (82a – 82b)

From Heaven
The Mishna had stated: If the yavam marries her, she is regarded as his wife in every respect, except that the obligations stemming from the kesuvah rests upon the property of her first husband.

The Gemora asks: What is the reason for this?

The Gemora answers: The yavam did not obligate himself to her; the Torah bestowed her upon him. (He is required to write for her a new kesuvah, but his properties are not encumbered towards this obligation; only the properties of the deceased are encumbered for this obligation.) But if there are no assets available from the deceased, the Rabbis established that there should be a kesuvah from the yavam as well, in order that she should not be so easy to divorce. (82b)

Lying on the Table
The Mishna had stated: The yavam should not say to her, “Your kesuvah is lying on the table (designating some of his property for the kesuvah),” but rather, all of his properties are indebted to her kesuvah. Likewise, an ordinary man may not say to her, “Your kesuvah is lying on the table.”

The Gemora asks: Why is it necessary for the Mishna to teach us the same halacha regarding an ordinary marriage; why would we think that there is a distinction?

The Gemora answers: It might have been suggested that the restriction mentioned applies only in the case of the yavam because the yavam does not insert in her kesuvah the clause, “That which I possess and that which I will acquire.” (The yevamah, having her security limited to the yavam’s possessions that were inherited from her deceased husband, would naturally suspect that by “putting her kesuvah on the table,” the yavam intends to escape his full responsibility and desires to deprive her of the possibility of collecting her kesuvah when the occasion arises. This, as might well be expected, would create animosity between husband and wife.) But in the latter case, where he does insert the clause, “That which I possess and that which I will acquire,” she relies upon this guarantee (even if he would designate money); hence, we were told that the ruling applies in both cases. (82b)

Kesuvah when he Divorces her and Remarries her
The Mishna had stated: If the yavam remarries, she is like any other woman and she is entitled only to her kesuvah.

The Gemora asks: What is the novelty in this halacha? We have learned in a Mishna regarding an ordinary wife that if the husband divorces her and then remarries her, she is entitled to the initial kesuvah.

The Gemora answers: If the Mishna would not have stated this halacha in respect to a yavam, I would have thought that this would only apply to an ordinary marriage where the man wrote the kesuvah himself; however, in respect to a yevamah, where the yavam did not write the original kesuvah, perhaps when he divorces her and then remarries her, he should be obligated to write her a new kesuvah. The Mishna teaches us that this is not so. (82b)

Origin of the Kesuvah Enactments
Rav Yehudah said: Originally, they would write for a virgin two hundred zuz and for a widow a maneh, and consequently, they grew old and could not take any wives (since the women would not marry if the husband’s possessions were not pledged for her kesuvah). Shimon ben Shetach took the initiative and ordained that all of the husband’s property is pledged for his wife’s kesuvah.

The Gemora cites a braisa which supports Rav Yehudah: Originally, they would write for a virgin two hundred zuz and for a widow a maneh, and consequently, they grew old and could not take any wives. It was then ordained that the amount of the kesuvah was to be deposited in the wife’s father’s house (preventing the husband from hiding it). At any time, however, when the husband would become angry with his wife, he would tell her, “Go to your kesuvah.” It was ordained, therefore, that the amount of the kesuvah was to be deposited in the house of her father-in-law. Wealthy women converted it into silver or gold baskets, while poor women converted it into urinals. Still, whenever the husband had occasion to be angry with his wife, he would tell her, “Take your kesuvah and go.” It was then that Shimon ben Shetach ordained that the husband must insert the pledging clause, “All of my property is pledged to your kesuvah. (82b)
WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU,
HA’ISHA SHENAFLU

[END]