Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 103 - Highlights

Residing with her Mother

The Mishna had stated: If someone marries a woman and promises to support her daughter (from a previous marriage) for five years, he must do so. If she (is divorced from him and) marries someone else (within those five years), and she makes that same condition with her new husband, he must keep this condition as well. The first husband cannot say, “If her mother would be married to me I will feed her.” He is obligated to bring her food to where her mother resides.

Rav Chisda says: From the Mishna, it may be derived that a girl, whether she is an adult or whether she is a minor, resides with her mother. This is true even if she is being supported by her brothers.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps the Mishna is only referring to a minor girl and that is when she resides with the mother? We would be concerned because of the following incident cited in a braisa: If someone died and he left over a young son to his mother; the heirs of the father claim that the son should reside with them and his mother claims that her son should reside with her, the halacha is that we place him with his mother and not with those who would inherit him (if he would die). There was such an incident and they place the son with his relatives. The very first evening, the relatives killed him (in order to take the inheritance; it is this very concern that causes us to say that the girl should reside with her mother and not with her relatives because she also receives a tenth of her father’s property).

The Gemora answers: If the Mishna would be referring only to a minor girl, it should have stated, “He brings her the food to where she is residing” (and it would be self evident that the minor girl is with her mother and the adult girl is with the brothers). By the fact that the Mishna said that the food is brought to where her mother resides, we learn that she resides with her mother, even if she is an adult. (102b – 103a)

Paying Twice

The Mishna had stated: Both husbands cannot say that they will split the costs of her food, but rather one buys her food and the other gives her the monetary equivalent.

The Gemora records a related incident: A certain man once leased his mill to another for the consideration of the latter’s services in grinding his wheat to sustain his household. Eventually, he (the original owner of the mill) became rich and he bought another mill and a donkey (in order to sustain his household himself). Thereupon, he said to the other, “Until now I have had my grinding done by you, but now (that I can grind myself), pay me rent for the mill. The other replied, “I will continue to grind for you.”

Ravina intended to rule that it involved the very same principle that was taught in our Mishna: Both husbands cannot say that they will split the costs of her food, but rather one buys her food and the other gives her the monetary equivalent (so too, in this case, the owner can demand to be paid with cash even though the original arrangement was for payment in service).

Rav Avira said to him: Are the two cases comparable? There, the daughter has only one stomach, not two; but here, the renter might tell the owner, “Grind with your own mill and sell it and that which I grind for you in mine, you shall keep for your household. This halacha is only applicable in a case where the renter has no other people that need grinding at his mill (and he himself must use the mill), but if he has sufficient orders for grinding at his mill, he may in such circumstances be compelled not to act in the manner of Sodom (and he would be required to pay the rent with money). (103a)

Mishna

The Mishna states: If a widow said, “I do not want to leave my husband’s house,” the heirs may not say to her, “Go to your father’s house and we shall support you,” but rather they support her in her husband’s house and they provide her with a room in accordance with her condition.

If she said, “I do not want to move from my father’s house,” the heirs may say to her, “If you reside with us, you will be maintained, but if you do not reside with us, you will not be maintained.” And if she claims, “It is because I am young and they are young (and she is concerned that a sin will be committed),” they support her even if she remains in her father’s house. (103a)

Widow’s Dwelling

The Gemora cites a braisa: A widow may use her deceased husband’s dwelling just as she used it during his lifetime. She may also use the slaves, the cushions, the coverings and the silver and gold utensils just as she used them during his lifetime. For he wrote for her in the kesuvah: And you shall dwell in my house and be supported from my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood in my house.

Rav Yosef taught: This halacha is only applicable if the husband left for the widow a house to dwell in; however, if he left only a shack, the inheritors live there, but not the widow (she must find her own place of lodging).

Rav Nachman said: If the orphans sold the house that was reserved for the widow, the sale is not valid.

The Gemora asks: Why is it different than that which Rav Assi taught in the name of Rabbi Yochanan? For Rav Assi taught in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: If the male orphans pre-empted the female orphans (before it came to Beis Din) and sold property from a small estate, their sale is valid (even though the daughters should have legally received the estate and the sons would go begging door to door)?

The Gemora answers: There, the property was not mortgaged to the daughters during her father’s lifetime, but here, the house was mortgaged to the widow during her husband’s lifetime.

Abaye stated: It has been our tradition to rule that if a widow’s dwelling collapsed, the inheritors are not obligated to rebuild it.

The Gemora cites a braisa which supports this ruling: If a widow’s dwelling collapsed, the inheritors are not obligated to rebuild it. Furthermore, even if she says, “Let me rebuild it at my own expense,” we do not listen to her (and the orphans can do whatever they desire with the property).

Abaye inquired: What is the halacha if she fixed up the house (in a manner that it will last much longer than previously anticipated; can the orphans demand that she leave the house after she lives there for the amount of years it would have lasted without her repairs or not)?

The inquiry remains unresolved. (103a)

Blessing, Wealth and Healing

The Mishna had stated: If she said, “I do not want to move from my father’s house,” the heirs may say to her, “If you reside with us, you will be maintained, but if you do not reside with us, you will not be maintained.”

The Gemora asks: Shouldn’t they be obligated to support her even in her father’s house?

The Gemora answers: This would support that which Rav Huna said. For Rav Huna said: The blessing of a house is proportionate to the amount of people residing in the house (and if she does not stay with them, the blessing is diminished).

The Gemora asks: But shouldn’t they be obligated to support her and deduct the amount of the loss?

The Gemora answers: That is precisely what the halacha is.

Rav Huna said: We can derive blessing, wealth and healing from the language of the Chachamim. In respect to ‘blessing,’ we have the statement just mentioned. ‘Wealth’ is learned from the following Mishna: If one sold fruits to his fellow and the buyer pulled them (effecting a kinyan), though they have not yet been measured, he has acquired them. If, however, they have been measured, but the buyer has not pulled them, he has not acquired them. But if the buyer is wise, he should rent the place where they are kept (and then he acquires the fruits and the seller cannot retract before the buyer pulls all the fruit; this is where the Chachamim taught us how to become wealthy). ‘Healing’ is derived from the following Mishna: A man should not chew wheat and place it on his wound during Pesach because it ferments (it becomes chametz from his saliva; the Chachamim taught us a remedy). (103a)





Rebbe’s Instructions

The Gemora cites a braisa: When Rebbe was about to depart this world, he said, “I require the presence of my sons.” When his sons entered, he instructed them, “Take care that you show proper respect to your mother. The candle shall continue to burn in its usual place. The table shall be laid in its usual place and my bed shall be spread in its usual place. Yosef of Chaifa and Shimon of Efrat who attended on me during my lifetime shall attend on me after I die.”

The Gemora explains Rebbe’s instructions: “Take care that you show proper respect to your mother.” The Gemora asks: Isn’t this a Biblical commandment? The Gemora answers: She was their father’s wife (not their mother; she merely raised them). The Gemora asks: There is a Biblical obligation to honor a father’s wife as well? The Gemora answers: That is only when the father is alive; after he dies, there is no obligation to honor his wife.

“The candle shall continue to burn in its usual place. The table shall be laid in its usual place and my bed shall be spread in its usual place.” The Gemora asks: What was the reason for these instructions? The Gemora answers: Rebbe used to come home every Erev Shabbos. On a certain Erev Shabbos a neighbor came to the door calling aloud, when his maidservant whispered, “Be quiet for Rebbe is sitting there.” When he heard this, he came no longer, in order that it should not look bad for earlier righteous people (who were denied the privilege of returning to their home after their death).

“Yosef of Chaifa and Shimon of Efrat who attended on me during my lifetime shall attend on me after I die.” He was understood to mean that they should attend to him in this world by burying him. When it was seen however, that their biers preceded his (they were buried before Rebbe), it became evident that Rebbe was referring to the World to Come. And the reason why Rebbe mentioned this was in order that people would not say that they were guilty of some sin and that it was only with the merit of attending to Rebbe that protected them until that moment.

The Gemora continues with its recording of Rebbe’s instructions prior to his death. Rebbe said, “I require the presence of the Chachamim.” When they entered, he instructed them, “Do not eulogize me in the towns (as my coffin is being carried to my place of burial). Begin studying Torah again in the Beis Medrash thirty days after my death (don’t eulogize me any longer). Shimon, my son is very wise, but my son Gamliel shall be the Nasi. Chanina bar Chama should be appointed the head of the Yeshiva.”

The Gemora explains Rebbe’s instructions: “Do not eulogize me in the towns (as my coffin is being carried to my place of burial).” They thought that Rebbe was concerned that it would be an unnecessary burden on the townspeople. However, once they saw that when he was eulogized in the big cities, all the townspeople came to participate, they realized that the purpose of his instructions was to honor the Torah (by having more people attend his eulogy).

“Begin studying Torah again in the Beis Medrash thirty days after my death (don’t eulogize me any longer).” This was because Rebbe did not wish to be greater than Moshe Rabbeinu, who was eulogized for thirty days and no longer. The Gemora recounts that they eulogized Rebbe for thirty days and thirty nights. Afterwards, they either eulogized him by day and studied Torah at night, or they eulogized him at night and studied Torah by day, until he was eulogized for the entire year.

The Gemora records: On the day that Rebbe died, a Heavenly voice went forth and announced: “Whoever has been present at the death of Rebbe is destined for the life of the World to Come.” A certain laundryman who used to come before Rebbe every day, failed to come on that day. When he heard this (the announcement), he went up upon a roof, jumped to the ground and died. A Heavenly voice came forth and announced: “That laundryman also is destined for the life of the World to Come.”

“Shimon, my son is very wise, but my son Gamliel shall be the Nasi.” The Gemora asks: Why did Rebbe say that Shimon his son was wise? The Gemora answers: He was saying that although Shimon was wise, Gamliel should be the Nasi. The Gemora explains: If not for Rebbe’s explicit instructions, Gamliel would not have been appointed Nasi even though he was older, for he was not as worthy as his brother Shimon. The Gemora asks: So why did Rebbe choose Gamliel over Shimon? The Gemora answers: In respect to his fear of sin, Gamliel was the most suited of all his brothers.

“Chanina bar Chama should be appointed the head of the Yeshiva.” The Gemora records that Rabbi Chanina did not accept this position, for Rabbi Afeis was two and a half years older than him. Rabbi Afeis was appointed head of the Yeshiva, and Rabbi Chanina sat outside. Levi went and joined Rabbi Chanina. After some time, Rabbi Afeis died and Rabbi Chanina was appointed head of the Yeshiva. Levi did not have a partner to sit with outside, so he went to Bavel.

And this is in accordance with what the Chachamim said to Rav: A great man (Levi) arrived in Nehardea, and he limped and he ruled that a woman may wear a tiara on Shabbos (although there was a decree against wearing adornments on Shabbos in a public domain, Levi ruled that a tiara was permitted; since they were only worn by prominent women, we were not concerned that they will remove their jewelry to show to their friends). Rav said: It is understood that Rabbi Afeis has died and Rabbi Chanina is now the head of the Yeshiva. Levi, evidently, did not have a partner to sit with outside, so he came to Bavel.

The Gemora asks: Perhaps it was Rabbi Chanina who died, and Rabbi Afeis was still the head of the Yeshiva? The Gemora answers: Levi would have studied under Rabbi Afeis (since he was younger than him). Alternatively, since Rebbe had declared that Rabbi Chanina the son of Rabbi Chama would be the head of the Yeshiva, Rav knew that this would eventually happen. This is because it is written that a righteous person decrees and Hashem fulfills his words.

The Gemora asks: Why didn’t Rebbe appoint Rabbi Chiya as the head of the Yeshiva? The Gemora answers: Rabbi Chiya had already died. The Gemora asks: But Rabbi Chiya said: “I saw the coffin of Rebbe and I cried over it”? The Gemora answers: It must be that Rebbe said that regarding Rabbi Chiya. The Gemora asks: But Rabbi Chiya said: “On the day that Rebbe died, holiness ceased.”? The Gemora answers: It must be that Rebbe said that regarding Rabbi Chiya. The Gemora asks further: But we learned in the following braisa: When Rebbe became sick, Rabbi Chiya came to visit him and found that he was crying. Rabbi Chiya asked him: Why are you crying? Didn’t we learn that if a man dies smiling, it is a good omen for him; if he dies weeping, it is a bad omen for him; if he dies with his face upwards, it is a good omen, if he dies with his face downwards, it is a bad omen; if he dies with his face towards the public it is a good omen, if he dies with his face towards the wall, it is a bad omen. If his face is greenish, it is a bad omen; if his face is bright and ruddy, it is a good omen. If he dies on Erev Shabbos, it is a good omen; if he dies on Motzoei Shabbos, it is a bad omen; if he dies on Erev Yom Kippur, it is a bad omen; if he dies on Motzoei Yom Kippur, it is a good omen. If he dies because of a stomach disease, it is a good omen because most righteous men die from stomach sickness. (Why are you crying, Rabbi Chiya was asking him?) Rebbe replied: I weep because I will no longer be able to study Torah and to perform the mitzvos. (It emerges from this braisa that Rebbe died before Rabbi Chiya?)

The Gemora answers: We must reverse the namesin the braisa. Alternatively, we can answer that Rabbi Chiya was engaged in the performance of mitzvos, and Rebbe thought that it would be best not to disturb him by becoming the head of the Yeshiva. (103a – 103b)

[END]