Ben Azzai

Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan (Daf Yomi: Sotah 4b): All of these Tannaim figured out the length of a seclusion based upon their own experience (how long it took each of them to perform the initial act of cohabitation with their own wife).

The Gemora asks: But Ben Azzai never got married (based upon the Gemora in Yevamos 63b, where Ben Azzai explained why he did not marry: “What should I do? My soul desires the Torah. The world can survive through other people.”)?

The Gemora answers: You could say that he got married and later divorced.

Alternatively, you can say that he heard this opinion from his teacher.

And if you prefer, you can say that “The secrets of Hashem are revealed to those that fear him.”

Rabbeinu Avraham min Ha’har explains that due to Ben Azzai’s tremendous desire to study Torah, he did not experience any unclean thoughts, and was therefore not obligated to get married.

Reb Elchanan Wasserman states that Ben Azzai was exempt from the mitzvah of marrying, for he was unable to cease studying Torah even for one moment.

Reb Yosef Engel writes that Ben Azzai discharged his obligation of procreation through his new insights in Torah. This is based upon the Gemora in Brochos (47b), which states that two torah scholars studying together can be regarded as three with respect to the laws of Birchas Hamazon (they could make a mezumen, even though the halacha is that three people are needed). The Rosh explains that the Torah that they are studying is regarded as the third person.

Read more!

Yevamah’s Mitzvah

The Gemora (Kesuvos 64a) states that we don’t write a certificate of rebelliousness against the yavam because we tell the yevamah, “Go, you are not obligated in this mitzvah!”

Rashi explains: The mitzvah to procreate obligates men, but not women.

The question can be asked: What about the mitzvah of yibum? Even if the woman is exempt from the commandment to procreate, but if she is obligated in the mitzvah of yibum, it should be regarded as the yavam is depriving the yevamah of her mitzvah. It is evident from our Gemora that the mitzvah of yibum is applicable only to the yavam, and not to the yevamah.

The Avudraham writes that the yevamah does not recite a blessing when she submits to chalitzah or yibum because she is exempt from the mitzvah of procreation. It seems that the two mitzvos are dependent upon each other; since she is not obligated to have children, she is exempt from the mitzvah of yibum.

The Rambam in his Sefer HaMitzvos (216) writes that there is a commandment for the yavam to perform a yibum with his brother’s wife when his brother died childless.

The Minchas Chinuch (1:15) states that it is implicit from the Rambam that he maintains that the mitzvah of yibum is an obligation for the man (the yavam) and not for the woman (the yevamah).

The Chinuch (Mitzvah 598 and 599) states explicitly that the mitzvah of yibum is only applicable to men and not to women.

The Minchas Chinuch cites a Pnei Yehoshua in Kesuvos (40a) that the mitzvah of yibum also applies to the yevamah.

Why should there be an obligation for the yevamah; the Torah explicitly states that the brother should marry his brother’s wife. It is not written anywhere that she shall be taken for yibum?

Reb Ezriel Cziment, in his sefer Mitzvos Hamelech answers: Besides the mitzvah of performing a yibum, there is also an obligation to establish a name for the deceased. It is this mitzvah that the yevamah plays an integral role in and she is thus included in the mitzvah obligation.

This would seemingly be inconsistent with our Gemora.

Read more!

Supporting your Children (scroll to the bottom to see Reb Moshe's opinion)

The Mishna (Kesuvos 49a) states: A father is not obligated to provide food for his daughter. This teaching Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah taught in front of the sages in Kerem Be’Yavneh: The sons should inherit and the daughters should be supported. Just as sons only inherit after their father dies, so too daughters should only be supported after their father dies.

The Gemora comments: This implies that he is not obligated in supporting his daughters, while he is obligated to support his sons. Additionally, it implies that there is no obligation to support one’s daughter but there is a mitzva to do so.

The Gemora asks: Who is the author of our Mishna? It does not seem to be Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, or Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah, as we shall see from the following Beraisa.

The Beraisa states that it is a mitzva to support girls, and certainly sons who learn Torah. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that it is a mitzva to support sons, and certainly daughters, as it is degrading for the girls. Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says that it is an obligation to support girls after the father dies, but both (girls and boys) do not have to be supported during the father’s lifetime.

Who is the author of our Mishna? It is difficult to say that it follows Rabbi Meir's opinion, as he says it is only a mitzva (not obligation) to support boys. It is difficult to say it follows Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, as he says that boys are also a mitzva. It is difficult to say it follows Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka's opinion, as he says it is only a mitzva to support boys after the father dies.

The Gemora answers that the author could be any of these three Tanaim. Our Mishna could be Rabbi Meir, and it would read as follows: A father is not obligated to support his daughter and similarly his son, but there is a mitzva to support one’s daughter and certainly his son. Why did it only say “daughter” in the Mishna? This teaches us that it is even a mitzva to support a daughter (though she does not learn Torah), but it is not obligatory.

Alternatively, the Gemora answers that it could also be Rabbi Yehuda. The Mishna would read as follows: A father is not obligated to support a daughter and certainly a son, but it is a mitzva to support a son and certainly a daughter. Why does the Mishna only discuss a son? This teaches us that there is no obligation to support one's children, even regarding a daughter.

Alternatively, the Gemora answers that it could also be Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka. The Mishna would read as follows: A father is not obligated to support a daughter or a son, and it is not even a mitzva to do so. The Mishna only used the term “obligation” (not to imply it is a mitzva, but rather) because there is an obligation to support daughters after their father dies.

Rabbi Ila said in the name of Reish Lakish in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Chanina: In Usha they decreed that a person must support his sons and daughters when they are minors.

The Gemora inquires: Does the halachah follow this decree or not? We can answer this from Rav Yehuda, who would tell people who came before him with this question, “The alligator has children, and throws them on the people of the city?!” [This implies that he would tell people they should do so, but not enforce it.] Rav Chisda would tell people who came before him: “Turn over a grinder in public stand on top of it and say: “a raven feeds its kin, and this person does not want to do so!”

The Gemora asks, does a raven indeed feed its kin? Doesn’t the passuk say “He feeds the sons of the raven who call out to Him?” This is not difficult, for the passuk is talking about the white ravens babies, while Rav Chisda meant the older black raven children (see Rashi).

When people would come before Rava, he would say: “Are you happy that your children should be supported from charity?” All of this is only referring to a case where the person is not wealthy. If he is wealthy, we force him to support his children. This is as in the case where Rava forced Rav Nasan bar Ami (regarding giving proper amounts of charity), and took from him four hundred zuz (type of coin) for charity.

Tosfos comments: If one has children less than six years old, he has an obligation to feed them, and it is enforceable. It would seem that this is a Rabbinical obligation.

Reb Moshe Feinstein in his sefer Dibros Moshe on Gittin (fourth perek; heora 83)writes the following novel halacha: If one has only one son and only one daughter, he is halachically required to support them. His reasoning is as follows: There is a mitzva of procreation. We hold according to Rabbi Yochanan, who states that if one has children and they die, he has not fulfilled his mitzva of procreation. Accordingly, if one does not sustain his children and they consequently die, he will be lacking his mitzva of peru u'revu. It is therefore incumbent upon him to be concerned about the welfare of these children; not necessarily for their sake, but for his mitzva.

He adds: When the Mishna says that one is not obligated to sustain his children, that is only if he has more than one son and one daughter. He concludes that he is bewildered why none of the poskim rule accordingly.

Read more!

Connection between the Conclusion of Yevamos to the Beginning of Kesuvos

Tractate Yevamos concludes with the following Gemora: Rabbi Elozar said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, for it is said: And all your children shall be disciples of Hashem; and abundant shall be the peace of your sons. In other places (Brochos 64b), the Gemora adds: Do not read banayich, your sons, but rather, bonayich, your builders. This is referring to the Torah scholars who increase peace in the world. Torah scholars strengthen the spiritual and physical dimensions of the world. They are actually building the world.

Tractate Kesuvos commences with the following halacha: A virgin is married on Wednesday.

What is the connection between the conclusion of Yevamos with the beginning of Kesuvos?

Sefer Sedeh Tzofim explains as follows: There is a dispute (Yevamos 65b) regarding if women are obligated in the mitzvah of procreation or not. The Gemora explains the argument. It is written [Breishis 1:28]: And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and conquer it.” Since it is the practice of men to conquer in battle, and not a woman, this indicates that the verse was addressed to men, and not to women. The Gemora asks: The term vechivshua, and conquer it, is a plural expression, and it would seem that the Torah is addressing the man and the woman to conquer the earth. Why would one opinion maintain that the obligation is only to the man? The Gemora answers: it is because it is written without a vav, and it may be read vechovshah, which is in the singular form.

Sefer Nachalas Binyomin explains that this opinion maintains that we say yeish eim lemasores, the transmitted written form has primacy, and that is why we expound the word in the singular to mean that only the man is obligated in the commandment of procreation, and not the woman. However, if we would hold yeish eim lemikra, the pronounced form has primacy, the word is read in its plural form, and we would be compelled to say that the mitzvah of procreation is applicable to the man and the woman.

Our Gemora says: A virgin is married on Wednesday. Tosfos asks: Why didn’t the Mishna say: A man marries a virgin on Wednesday? Tosfos answers: If it would have said it in that manner, we would have thought that a man may marry a woman even against her will; the Mishna says: She is married to teach us that marriage can only be effected with her consent.

The Shitah Mikubetzes adds: One might think that if the kiddushin was accomplished with her consent, one may effect nisuin, even against her will; it is for this reason that the Mishna says: She is married (nisuin), only if she agrees.

The sefer Shem Yisroel writes that this is only true if you hold that a woman is not obligated in procreation. However, if you would maintain that a woman is obligated in this mitzvah, she can be compelled to perform nisuin, once she has agreed to the kiddushin.

We can now explain the connection between the two tractates. It is evident from the Gemora at the end of Yevamos that that we say yeish eim lemasores, the transmitted written form has primacy, for Rabbi Elozar said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, for it is said: And all your children shall be disciples of Hashem; and abundant shall be the peace of your sons. In other places (Brochos 64b), the Gemora adds: Do not read banayich, your sons, but rather, bonayich, your builders. We do not follow the principle of yeish eim lemikra, the pronounced form has primacy, but rather, according to its written from.

This is why the next Mishna, the commencement of Kesuvos says: A virgin is married on Wednesday. We see from this language that we cannot force the woman into nisuin even if she already performed kiddushin willingly. This is because she is not obligated in the mitzvah of procreation. She is not included in this mitzvah because we say yeish eim lemasores, the transmitted written form has primacy, and the verse states: vechovshah, which is in the singular form, even though it is read vechivshua, in its plural form.

Read more!