A Woman's Sacrifices and Recital

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

Rabbi Yehudah used to expound common terms. For it has been taught in a braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: A rich person is obligated to bring a rich person’s korban for his wife, and likewise, he is obligated to provide her with the animals for any of her korbanos that she must bring, for the following is what he wrote for her in the kesuvah: My properties are pledged for every claim you may have against me from before up to now.

Rashi explains that it is the husband’s obligation to provide for the sacrifice of his wife, and Rabbi Yehudah rules that when the husband is doing so, he must bring a sacrifice according to his financial status. He cannot claim and say, “My wife has no possessions of her own and she is therefore poor, and I should therefore only be obligated to bring a poor man’s sacrifice for her.”

The Gemora in Nedarim (35b) cites a verse which teaches us that a man is required to bring a korban for his wife, whether she is normal or insane. This, however, is only true regarding sacrifices that are offered for someone who lacks atonement, for these korbanos are different in the following respect: Korbanos are only brought with the owner’s consent; however, a korban, which is brought for one who lacks atonement, can be brought even without the owner’s consent. Therefore, all other korbanos, the woman would be required to bring them; her consent is a necessity.

Rabbi Yaakov Emden in Mor U’Ketziah (47) writes that women, in general, have no connection to korbanos, except for those that are her personal obligations, e.g. the birds of a zavah or for a woman who gave birth.

The Peri Megadim disagrees and writes that they are included in the general sacrifices, and certainly with the recital of the korbanos, which we do nowadays, as a replacement for the actual offering of the sacrifices.

The sefer Toras Hayoledes brings that a woman who gave birth, on the forty-first day if she had a son, and on the eighty-first day if she had a daughter, should recite the verses in Parshas Tazria dealing with the korbanos she would have been required to bring if there was a Beis HaMikdash in existence. And she should conclude with the following prayer, “Master of the Universe, it should be the will of our G-d and the G-d of our forefathers that this recital which I said should be significant and accepted before You as if I actually brought my prescribed sacrifices. And it should be the will of our G-d and the G-d of our forefathers that You should build the Beis HaMikdash speedily in our days.”

The Pischei Zuta discusses if she would be required to recite the passages that deal with the sacrifices that she would bring if she was poor and could afford the animals. For perhaps that dispensation was only in the times of the Beis HaMikdash, when korbanos were being brought; however, now, that we are merely reciting the verses, every woman should say the same thing.

In the siddur Keser Nehura, it is written that on the day following a woman’s immersion in a mikvah for her menstrual impurity, she should recite the passages from Parshas Metzora that deal with those halachos. And she should conclude by saying, “It should be the will of our G-d and the G-d of our forefathers that this recital which I said should be significant and accepted before You as if I actually brought my prescribed sacrifices.”

Read more!

Two Leniencies and Two Stringencies

The Gemora (Kesuvos 82a) had stated that we do not find a Tanna ruling stringently on two matters in respect to a kesuvah. Rashi explains that since a kesuvah is a Rabbinic enactment in the first place, we cannot rule with extreme stringencies. Therefore, we cannot rule that moveable objects are pledged for the kesuvah (in accordance with Rabbi Meir) and that the kesuvah may be collected from the debtor of the deceased husband (in accordance with Rabbi Nosson).

The Rif writes that this particular halachic ruling is not applicable nowadays. In the times of the Gemora, the society was an agricultural one and therefore, only real estate was pledged for the kesuvah. However, now that we maintain that all of the husband’s possessions are pledged for her kesuvah, this is not regarded as a stringency and therefore we can rule that the kesuvah may be collected from the debtor of the deceased husband.

Rabbi Braun in Sheorim Mitzuyanim B’halacha points out that the inverse is true as well. In a situation where we rule leniently, we do not rule according to two leniencies. Shulchan Aruch (Y”D, 199:7) writes that although there are times that we allow a woman to immerse herself in a ritual bath during the daytime, we will inform her then that she must clean herself immediately prior to immersion, and we do not rely on the leniency which normally allows a woman to prepare herself a significant time before immersion.

Read more!

Food for Thought - Kesuvos 58

*** There are several different opinions as to the amount of terumah a groom should provide to his bride prior to the nisuin.

Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseira said: We give her two thirds terumah and one third chulin (unconsecrated produce).

Maharshal comments: An average time for a woman to menstruate (consequently, she is tamei and forbidden from eating terumah) is once every thirty days. The normal flow of blood is for three days. In addition, she must observe seven days of cleanliness prior to becoming tahor and only then will she be permitted to eat terumah again.

Rav Elyashiv Shlita asks: Where did the Maharshal find that an ordinary woman menstruates for three days? It is our custom to wait five days!?

*** The Mishna had stated: The yavam does not entitle his yevamah to eat terumah.

The Gemora explains the reason for this: It is written [Vayikra 22:11]: The acquisition of his money, he may eat of it. Only a Kohen’s own acquisition may eat terumah; however, a yevamah is the acquisition of his brother, not his own.

Rashi maintains that even if the yevamah began eating terumah while her husband was alive, she will be required to cease eating terumah once he dies.

Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and holds that Biblically, once a yevamah obtained the right to eat terumah, she preserves that right even after the husband dies. It is merely a Rabbinical prohibition; the verse cited in the Gemora is only an asmachta (used as support for the Rabbi’s decree).

Reb Elchonon Wasserman in Koveitz Shiurim (183) asks: Why does Rabbeinu Tam hold that the yevamah is Biblically permitted to eat terumah even after her husband died? She is not the wife of a Kohen any longer; she doesn’t have any offspring from the Kohen (which would have allowed her to continue eating terumah) and she is not yet the acquisition of the yavam!?

[Perhaps, this challenge can be answered by examining the concept of the zikah-attachment between the yavam and the yevamah.]

Read more!