Kollel Iyun Hadaf Halachah Outline of the Daf: Sotah 21-25
Kollel Iyun Hadaf Halachah Outline of the Daf: Sotah 21-25
FROM THE DAF
prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
CAN ONE WHO SUPPORTS TORAH SHARE THE REWARD?
Gemara
Question: What do we learn from "Boz Yavuzu Lo (they will scorn him)"?
Answer (Ula): This does not refer to Shimon, the brother of Azaryah (who was called so, for his brother supported him), nor to R. Yochanan (who was supported by the Nasi). Rather, it refers to Hillel and Shevna.
(Rav Dimi): Hillel engaged in Torah. His brother Shevna engaged in business.
Shevna: Let us be partners, and split the rewards (in this world and the next).
A voice from Heaven: "If a man would give all his wealth for love (Torah learning), they will scorn him."
Berachos 34b (R. Chiya bar Aba): All prophetic visions of future reward were only for one who marries off his daughter to a Chacham, or does business on behalf of a Talmid Chacham, or lets a Talmid Chacham benefit from his possessions. No prophet ever had a vision of the reward in the World to Come for a Talmid Chacham -- "Ayin Lo Ra'asah Elokim Zulasecha Ya'aseh li'Mechakeh Lo."
Pesachim 53b (R. Yochanan): People who are Matil Mal'ei l'Kis Chachamim (help them profit in business) merit to sit in the Heavenly Yeshiva - "Ki b'Tzel ha'Chachmah b'Tzel ha'Kasef."
Rishonim
Perush ha'Mishnayos (Avos 4:6): A Chacham may not take gifts. Others may be Matil Mal'ei l'Kiso, i.e. they sell his merchandise before anything else.
Rashi (Pesachim 53b DH Matil): Matil Mal'ei l'Kis Chachamim is to give (lend) to them merchandise to profit from it.
Rashi (Zevachim 2a DH Shimon): Azaryah stipulated with Shimon that he will supply Shimon's needs, and receive a share in the reward for his Torah.
Magen Avos (1:14): Shevna is scorned, for he did not offer to support Hillel before he learned.
Maharsha (21a DH Mai): Shimon and R. Yochanan were scorned in this world (they were called by the name of their supporters) and the next (they lost half the reward for their learning. Ula teaches that one should not do like Shimon or R. Yochanan. Rather, he should refuse, like Hillel.)
Poskim
Shulchan Aruch (YD 246:1): One who cannot learn, because he does not know how to learn at all, or due to distractions, should support others who learn.
Rema: It is considered as if he himself learned. Levi can stipulate with David that David will learn and Levi will supply his income and share the reward.
Shach (2): They share the reward, and also the money that Levi earns.
Gra (7): Bereishis Rabah (99:11) says that Zevulun is mentioned before Yisachar in Yakov's Berachah because he did business and fed Yisachar, who learned. Moshe said "rejoice Zevulun in your going out (because you have a share of) Yisachar in your tents." Shimon is called 'Azaryah's brother', even though he was greater than Azaryah, because Azaryah supported him.
Gra (7, citing Vayikra Rabah 25a): Had it said 'Torah is a tree of life for those who toil in it', and 'cursed is he who will not learn the Torah', (many of) Yisrael would falter. Rather, Torah is "a tree of life la'Machazikim Bah (for those who support it)', and "cursed is he who Lo Yakim (will not uphold) the Torah." If one is Chayav Misah for a sin, he should learn more than he used to, and he will live. If he does not learn, he should become a community leader and overseer of Tzedakah, for it says "... la'Machazikim Bah" and "... Asher Lo Yakim." Even if one learned, taught and fulfilled, but he could have protested (against sin) or supported Torah but did not, the above curse applies. ." If one did not learn, teach or fulfill, and was not able to support Torah but (struggled and) supported, and was not able to protest but (anyway) he protested, the Berachah "... Asher Yakim" applies to him.
Rema (ibid.): If David already learned, he cannot sell a share (of the reward) for money that Levi will give.
R. Yerucham (Toldos Adam v'Chavah 2:5, cited in Bedek ha'Bayis): David can stipulate before learning that Levi will support him and get half the reward, like Yisachar and Zevulun. David cannot stipulate after learning - "if a man would give all his wealth...", like it says about Hillel and Shevna. The Meforshim say that David loses (if he stipulates); he forfeits his share.
Maharam Alashkar (101, cited by R. Akiva Eiger): Rav Hai Gaon said that it is folly to think that one can sell the reward for fasts or Mitzvos that he did. "Tzidkas ha'Tzadik Alav Tihyeh v'Rish'as ha'Rasha Alav Tihyeh" - just like one is not liable for another's sins, one does not receive another's merits. Is reward for Mitzvos something a person can carry around and give to whom he wants?! Reward is honor for one's deeds. One receives the Shechinah; he is praised and stands in the place appropriate for him. If one sold the reward for his fast, he lost it. He did not fast for Hash-m, rather, for money. Perhaps he will be punished for making Hash-m's name a mockery and an axe to use for food. However, surely one who pays teachers to teach, and helps support those who learn so they will be free to learn, has a great reward. One who tries to buy another's reward is disgraced, like Shevna.
Esh Da'as (Parshas Vayelach, cited by R. Akiva Eiger): One who paid 100 gold coins for another's share in Livyasan should not rejoice. The seller should mourn having made the world to come a joke, and sold eternal life for money. Eating from Livyasan is not physical. It is an eternal delight due to one's Mitzvos. Once he sold his share, he lost it. The buyer gets reward for showing how dear is the world to come to him, that he spent a vast sum for it.
Yefe To'ar (on Vayikra Rabah 25:1 DH v'Eis): Three verses allude to three ways of supporting Chachamim. "B'Tzel ha'Chachmah..." alludes to Matil Mal'ei l'Kis Chachamim, i.e. one who lends to them money to be able to buy merchandise which can be sold for a profit. He merits to sit in the Heavenly Yeshiva. "...V'Asu Tzedakah...; Ashrei Enosh Ya'aseh Zos" alludes to one who gives Tzedakah to Chachamim. "... La'Machazikim Bah" refers to those who get others to give, i.e. community leaders and overseers of Tzedakah.
Esh Da'as (ibid.): "B'Tzel ha'Chachmah..." refers to one who gives half his income to the Chacham. He gets half the reward, like Yisachar and Zevulun - "Shneihem Mele'im Soles" (Bamidbar Rabah 13:17). "Ashrei Enosh Ya'aseh Zos" alludes to supplying a Chacham's needs, like Azaryah did for Shimon. "La'Machazikim Bah" refers to one who gives after the Chacham learned. He does not get the reward of Torah, just the Mitzvah of supporting Torah.
Aruch ha'Shulchan (8): Surely, reward for the world to come cannot be sold. When they join from the beginning, the two did the Mitzvah together, like Yisachar and Zevulun. There were visions of the future reward for one who does business for a Chacham, but not for the future reward of a Chacham.
Chelkas Yaakov (YD 137:5): One may make a Yisachar-Zevulun partnership with Ma'aser Kesafim, for this gives merely a good reward in the world to come. Even without stipulating, one who benefits a Chacham clings to the Shechinah, and it is as if he brought Temidim... Ma'aser Kesafim is more lenient than Ma'aser Oni, from which one has Tovas Hana'ah. Rashi in Zevachim says that Azaryah stipulated with Shimon, but Rashi in Sotah connotes that it suffices to intend to have a share in his learning. Sefer Chasidim (585, cited in Shach 242:66) says that if Ploni teaches Yosef only because Kalev pays him, Yosef returns Kalev's Aveidah before Ploni's. This is due to Tovas Hana'ah, without a Yisachar-Zevulun partnership!
Igros Moshe (YD 4:37 from DH u'Sfeikah): The Shach (2) connotes that they share the earnings and reward equally. If Zevulun can supply only half of Yisachar's needs, he gets half the reward for the half of the year that Yisachar can learn without working. If he could supply it all, but does not, he gets only reward for supporting Torah. The same applies if Yisachar has 200 Zuz, but he would learn less without Zevulun's help. The partnership gives to Zevulun an equal share in the additional learning Yisachar achieved due to Zevulun's help. This refers to reward of Torah in this world and the next, and protection from sin.
REWARD FOR WALKING TO THE BEIS HA'KENESES
Gemara
(R. Yochanan): We learned (strategies for) receiving reward from a widow.
There was a widow who used to pray every day in R. Yochanan's Beis Medrash, even though there was a Beis ha'Keneses near her.
R. Yochanan: Isn't there a Beis ha'Keneses near you?
The widow: I come here to receive Schar Pesi'os (reward for each step)!
Bava Metzi'a 107a (Rav): "Baruch Atah ba'Ir" is that your house will be close to the Beis ha'Keneses.
(R. Yochanan): "Baruch Atah ba'Ir" is that you will have a Beis ha'Kisei (privy) near your table. A house close to the Beis ha'Keneses is not a Berachah.
This is like R. Yochanan taught elsewhere, that one is rewarded for every step he takes to walk to the Beis ha'Keneses.
Berachos 8a - Question (Rav Chisda): What do we learn from "Ohev Hash-m Sha'arei Tziyon mi'Kol Mishkenos Yakov"?
Answer: Hash-m loves places where learning leads to definitive Halachah, more than all the Batei Kenesiyos and Batei Medrash.
(R. Chiya bar Ami): After the Churban (when the Great Sanhedrin is not in its place), these places of Halachah are the only places dear to Hash-m.
(Abaye): At first, I used to learn in my house and pray in Beis ha'Keneses; after I heard R. Chiya's teaching, I pray only where I learn.
Even though there were 13 Batei Kenesiyos in Tzipori. R. Ami and R. Asi would pray only where they learned.
Megilah 27b: R. Elazar ben Shamu'a attributed his long life to three merits. One was that he never made a shortcut l'Beis ha'Keneses.
Maseches Sofrim (18:8): "Atem Nitzavim..." - men come to hear (Divrei Torah), women come to be rewarded for their steps, and children come to bring reward to those who bring them. This is the source for girls to come to the Beis ha'Keneses, to bring reward to those who bring them, and they themselves get reward.
Rishonim
Rashi (Megilah 27b DH Kapandriya): R. Elazar never used a Beis ha'Keneses to be a shortcut.
Hagahos on Turei Even (98): I would have explained that he did not make a shortcut to get to a Beis ha'Keneses. He took the long path, to get Schar Pesi'os).
Maharik (113): We cannot change the place of the Beis ha'Keneses without a proper reason (for it will be further for some people). It is known that people prefer to be close. This is a Berachah! Even according to R. Yochanan, who says that one receives Schar Pesi'os, surely one can say 'I do not desire the longer walk, nor its reward.'
Poskim
Shulchan Aruch (OC 90:18): A fixed Beis Medrash has more Kedushah than a Beis ha'Keneses. It is a greater Mitzvah to pray in a Beis Medrash than in a Beis ha'Keneses, as long as he prays with 10.
Magen Avraham (22): If there are two Batei Kenesiyos it is a Mitzvah to go to the farther one, for he gets Schar Pesi'os.
Magen Avraham (32): Even if there are more people in the Beis ha'Keneses, it is better to pray in his Beis Medrash to avoid Bitul Torah. We find that Rebbi used to pray only once a month! However, in Siman 298:14 we say that we are Batel from the Beis Medrash for "b'Rav Am Hadras Melech"! We must say that there, it is only for a short time, so Chachamim were not concerned.
Avodas ha'Gershoni (12 DH Hinei): A case occurred in which a Yevamah requested that the Yavam come to her to do Chalitzah. The oldest Yavam asked to be paid Schar Pesi'os; a younger brother offered to do Chalitzah for free. Since the Torah obligates her to go to the Yavam, a Yavam may demand money if she wants him to come. Therefore, the oldest brother is not refusing; she must do Chalitzah with the oldest brother.
Rashbam (122a DH l'Krovah): When Eretz Yisrael was divided, people who received land far from Yerushalayim received compensation (for needing to walk further on the festivals).
Question (Chasam Sofer OC 29 DH u'Ketzas): Even though we cannot say that one who is further should pay more because he receives Schar Pesi'os, we cannot say that he should be compensated for being further away! It is difficult to say that the Rashbam says so according to Rav, who argues with R. Yochanan. Rather, they assessed the closer places for more, to show honor to Yerushalayim.
Chasam Sofer (5 CM 177 DH Hinei Yesh): If someone called a Mohel to come circumcise a baby, and there was no baby, he pays him 10 gold pieces (like one who stole a Mitzvah) plus Schar Pesi'os. The Mohel would have preferred to do a Mitzvah, and get reward from Hash-m for having walked to a Mitzvah! I do not know how to assess Schar Pesi'os. Poskim (CM 382:1) argue about whether or not it Is fixed.
Si'ach Yitzchak (7 DH Im Ki): The Maharal (Nesivos Olam) says that Schar Pesi'os applies only to going to the Beis ha'Keneses, but not to a Sukah. We do not find that one must take small steps when returning from a Mitzvah (only after praying in a Beis ha'Keneses).
Si'ach Yitzchak (91 DH v'Shuv): R. Yochanan was surprised that the woman walked to his Beis Medrash instead of the Beis ha'Keneses near her, for he holds that a Beis ha'Keneses has more Kedushah. She answered that (nevertheless) it is better to go to the Beis Medrash for Schar Pesi'os.
Har Tzvi (53): One may fix himself to pray in a further Beis ha'Keneses for Schar Pesi'os, even though he passes a closer Beis ha'Keneses on the way. Poskim say that it is better to walk further; they did not distinguish whether or not he passes a Beis ha'Keneses on the way. This is not called passing over Mitzvos. Berachos 8b permits passing by a Beis ha'Keneses when there is another one in the city.
MUST A KOHENES BECOME TAM'EI FOR RELATIVES?
Gemara
3a (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "He (a Kohen) will become Tamei for her (his deceased sister)" is optional;
R. Akiva says, it is an obligation.
23b (Mishnah): What differences are there between a (male) Kohen and a Bas Kohen? A Bas Kohen may become Tamei Mes. A Kohen may not...
23b - Question: What is the source of this?
Answer: It says "Benei Aharon", not Benos Aharon.
Yevamos 29b (Beraisa): If an Arusah (a wife before Nisu'in) died, her husband is not an Onen (forbidden to Kodshim) due to her. He does not become Tamei for her. If he died, she is not an Onenes, and does not become Tamei for him.
Kidushin 35b (Abaye): A verse forbids Kohanim to shave, and another forbids Yisre'elim to shave. We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Pe'as-Pe'as" between them. Just like the former does not apply to women (we learn from "Benei Aharon"), also the latter does not apply to women.
Question: It says "Benei Aharon" regarding Tum'ah. If it also applied to shaving (to exclude a Kohenes), there would be no need for the Gezeirah Shavah! The Torah gave extra Mitzvos to Kohanim, yet female Kohanim are not forbidden to shave. All the more so, the Isur for Yisraelim to shave does not apply to women!
Answer: We would have said that "Benei Aharon" does not apply to shaving, for there is an interruption (a verse in between that applies even to women). We know that this is not so only due to the Gezeirah Shavah. (If female Kohanim were forbidden to shave, the Gezeirah Shavah would not teach anything!)
(Isi - Beraisa): Women are also exempt from Karachah (tearing out hair due to a Mes).
36a (Abaye): Isi learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Karachah-Karachah" from the Isur Karachah for Kohanim. Just like that does not apply to women (it says "Benei Aharon"), also the Isur Karachah of Yisraelim does not apply to women.
Question: If "Benei Aharon" exempts Kohanos from Karachah, we do not need a Gezeirah Shavah! Yisre'elim do not have extra Mitzvos, so all the more so, the Isur Karachah for Yisraelim does not apply to women!
Answer: We would have thought that "Benei Aharon" does not apply to Karachah, for there is an interruption. The Gezeirah Shavah teaches that this is not so
Zevachim 100a (Beraisa): The wife of Yosef ha'Kohen died on Erev Pesach, and he did not want to become Tamei. The other Kohanim forced him to become Tamei against his will.
Rishonim
Rambam (Hilchos Evel 2:6): Aveilus is a very severe Mitzvah. It overrides Tum'as Kohen for his relatives, so he can deal with them and mourn over them - "Lah Yitama." This is a Mitzvas Aseh. If he does not want to, we force him. This refers to a male Kohen. A Kohenes is not forbidden to become Temei'ah, therefore she is not commanded to become Temei'ah (for relatives). It is optional.
Rebuttal #1 (Ra'avad): An Arusah need not become Temei'ah for her husband. This implies that a Nesu'ah must become Temei'ah for him.
Rebuttal #2 (Ramach): A Kohen is forbidden to become Tamei, yet he is commanded to be Mitamei for relatives. All the more so, a Bas Kohen, who may become Tamei, is commanded to be Mitamei for relatives!
Defense (Radvaz): We learn from "Benei Aharon" that a Kohenes becomes Tamei through Mesim, unlike a Kohen (Sotah 23b). It does not say that a Kohen is warned about Tum'ah, but a Bas Kohen is not! This is a clear proof for the Rambam.
Note: What is the proof?! Migdal Oz cites the Gemara (23b) to say 'a man is Mitamei for Mesim, but a woman is not.' Perhaps the Radvaz had this text, and our version of the Radvaz was 'corrected' to conform to our text.
Toras ha'Adam: Perhaps the Rambam expounds that "Yetamei" applies only to one for whom "Lo Yitama" applies. Alternatively, "Benei Aharon" excludes Benos Aharon from the entire Parshah.
Turei Even (Rosh Hashanah 16a DH Chayav): Abaye obligates a man to feed Shalmei Simchah to his wife. If she is Temei'ah, he is exempt. Surely she is not commanded to enable him to be Mesame'ach her!
Question (ha'Makneh Kidushin 35b DH b'Rashi Hifsik): Rashi says that the interruption (from Benei Aharon) is the Mitzvah of Tum'as Kerovim (it applies even to women. This is like R. Akiva.) The Rambam must say that Karachah interrupts. However, Isi exempts women from Karachah, and if not for a Gezeirah Shavah, he would have said that there is an interruption!
Answer (ha'Makneh): The Rambam holds that if not for a Gezeirah Shavah, we would have obligated woman to be Mitamei, for the Mitzvah applies at all times. Rather, the Gezeirah Shavah exempts women from shaving. Now, it seems that the entire Parshah is only for Benei Aharon, and women are exempt also from Tum'as Kerovim. Chachamim obligate them regarding Karachah due to a Drashah (Am Kadosh Atah).
Maharatz Chayos (23a): The Mishnah lists the differences between Kohanim and Kohanos. According to the Rambam, why was Tum'as Kerovim omitted? Sefer ha'Mitzvos (37) says that Tum'as Kerovim depend on Kedushas Kohen. Therefore, it suffices to teach that she may be Mitamei to Mesim.
Torah Temimah (Vayikra 21:1 (4)): "Lo Yitama... Ki Im li'Sh'ero..." shows that the Mitzvah of Tum'as Kerovim is part of the Isur to be Mitamei, i.e. to be Mitamei only for these relatives. This is why Sefer ha'Mitzvos counts them like one. One opinion in Kidushin 36a says that "Benei Aharon" excludes Benos Aharon from the entire Parshah. All the more so it excludes them from the entire Mitzvah of Tum'ah!
Rosh (Hilchos Tum'ah 4): Rashi (Kesuvos 53a DH v'Lo Mitam'es) explains that since a Kohenes is not commanded about Tum'ah, 'an Arusah is not Mitamei' means that she need not be Mitamei. It applies also to a Yisraelis. It is a Mitzvah to be Metamei for relatives, but not for an Arus. The Rambam says that since a Kohenes is not commanded about Tum'ah, she need not be Mitamei for relatives. It is optional. Even a Nesu'ah is not Mitamei. The Beraisa discusses an Arusah due to other laws (which apply only to Eirusin). The Ramban strove to find a source for the Rambam, and failed. One must bring a proof to exempt women from this Mitzvah.
Question (Minchas Chinuch 264 [23]/ p.76 DH v'Hinei): The Rambam holds that a Kohen is Metamei for his wife only because it is like a Mes Mitzvah. In any case, there is no reason for a Nesu'ah to be Mitamei for her husband!
Poskim
Shulchan Aruch (YD 373:3): All relatives for whom a Kohen may become Tamei, it is a Mitzvah to be Mitamei for them. If he does not want to, we force him. The same applies to men and women.
MUST ONE DIVORCE ME'UBERES OR MEINEKES CHAVERO?
Gemara
(Mishnah - R. Meir): If a man married Me'uberes (Chavero) or Meinekes Chavero (a woman pregnant with or nursing a baby from another man), she does not drink nor receive a Kesuvah;
Chachamim say, he can separate from her and remarry her (after the nursing period ends. Since she could be married to him later, she may drink.)
26a (Beraisa - R. Meir): One may not marry Me'uberes or Meinekes Chavero. If he married her, he must divorce her and may never remarry her;
Chachamim forbid marrying her. If he did, he must expel her. When the period of nursing finishes, he may remarry her.
Yevamos 36b (Mishnah): (If a Yevamah did Yibum and was found to be pregnant...) if she gave birth to a Nefel (they may remain married.)
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): He divorces her with a Get.
(Rava): R. Meir and R. Eliezer hold similarly.
Objection (Abaye): If one transgressed Bi'ah with his brother's wife, an Isur mid'Oraisa, R. Eliezer forces him to divorce her. Perhaps he is lenient about Me'uberes Chavero, which is mid'Rabanan!
Perhaps R. Meir is stringent about a mid'Rabanan Isur, for Chachamim strengthened their words more than mid'Oraisa laws, but (we need not decree to make) people refrain from a mid'Oraisa transgression!
(Rava): Chachamim obligate one who married Me'uberes Chavero to divorce her.
Support (Mar Zutra): The Beraisa says 'he expels her', not 'he separates.'
37a (Rav Ashi) Question: A Kohen who married a Safek Shomeres Yavam may keep her.) If Levi married a woman pregnant from or nursing a baby from David, are we lenient for a Kohen (he need not divorce her, so he may remarry her after she finishes nursing)?
Answer (R. Hoshaya brei d'Rav Idi): No. Chachamim (who argue with R. Shimon ben Gamliel) assume that even if a baby died within 30 days, it was viable. A Kohen cannot keep his wife if she does Chalitzah, so we rely on Chachamim;
Here, we cannot rely on R. Meir (who says that Reuven must divorce her and may never remarry her), nor on Chachamim (who obligate divorcing her)!
If a man who was Mekadesh a woman within three months (after she was widowed or divorced) and fled, Rav Acha and Rafram argued about whether we excommunicate him (until he divorces her), or if it suffices that he fled.
A case occurred, and Rafram said that it suffices that he fled.
Kesuvos 60a: Abaye permitted a man to be Mekadesh a woman nursing a 15 month old baby, for several opinions permit even Nisu'in. Rav Yosef reminded him that Rav and Shmuel require waiting 24 months, excluding the days of birth and of Kidushin. Abaye ran to retract his ruling, but was unable to catch the man.
Rishonim
Rif and Rosh (Yevamos 10b and 4:4): One may not marry a pregnant or nursing woman. We rule like Chachamim; he must divorce her, even if he is a Kohen.
Question (Rosh): Why is it a support that the Beraisa says 'he expels her', and not 'he separates from her'? Regarding a Sotah Me'uberes Chavero, Chachamim also say 'separates', and surely it is with a Get, like here!
Answer #1 (Rosh): 'Separate' can mean with or without a Get. 'Expels' is only with a Get.
Answer #2 (Rosh): A Sotah is forbidden to him until she drinks, so we are not concerned lest they have Bi'ah, so he need not divorce her. R. Yosef of Orlins likewise permitted one who was Mekadesh Meinekes Chavero to separate without a Get, since an Arusah before Nisu'in is forbidden like a Nidah. Only one who made Nisu'in must divorce her. Abaye tried to retract his Heter to be Mekadesh, but we do not find that he forced the man to divorce her! We forbid a nursing woman to accept Kidushin or have Nisu'in. If she needed a Get after Kidushin, we would not need to say that Nisu'in is forbidden! One who was Mekadesh before three months (a widow or divorcee must wait before remarrying for Havchanah, to avoid doubts about from whom she is pregnant) must give a Get if he did not flee. Perhaps we are more stringent about Havchanah.
Rebuttal (Rosh): We are not concerned lest one transgress the Isur Sotah, which is mid'Oraisa. If the only Isur is Me'uberes Chavero, which is mid'Rabanan, we are concerned, and even if there is a second Isur mid'Rabanan of an Arusah! Rabbeinu Meir forces one who made Nisu'in with Me'uberes Chavero to divorce her, even if he vowed Al Da'as Rabim (on the will of others) not to benefit from her until she finishes nursing, which forbids her mid'Oraisa. Sotah is different; a man despises her for being secluded after he warned her. Perhaps Abaye forced the man to divorce her; the Sugya was not discussing that. Some texts say 'she may not have Nisu'in, or (even) accept Kidushin. Perhaps our text mentions Nisu'in because R. Yehudah permits even Nisu'in after 18 months.
Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 11:28): If one transgressed and had Nisu'in with a pregnant or nursing woman in this time, he divorces her, even if he is a Kohen. If he is a Yisrael, he may remarry her after 24 months of nursing. If he married her and fled and later settled with her, this is fine. If one was Mekadesh a pregnant or nursing woman, we do not force him to divorce her or (allow) Nisu'in until after the period of nursing or until the baby dies.
Poskim
Rema (EH 13:11): Some say that if Leah gave her baby to a wet-nurse, who swore to nurse for the entire period, and Leah had Nisu'in, her husband need not divorce her.
Gra (39): Teshuvas Maimoniyos (24) permits. All other Poskim forbid.
Rivash (360, cited in Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu v'Im): We ceased to let widows swear to collect the Kesuvah (Gitin 35a), for they used to 'permit' to themselves matters and swear falsely. Perhaps the wet-nurse will do so. Here, one opinion was even concerned lest a woman kill her baby!
Beis Shmuel (25): It is not clear whether a security helps b'Di'eved if she had Nisu'in
Shulchan Aruch (12): If one transgressed and had Nisu'in with a pregnant or nursing woman within 24 months, we excommunicate him unless he fled. He divorces her, even if he is a Kohen. He must pay a Kesuvah if she claims from him. If he is a Yisrael, he may remarry her after 24 months of nursing. He writes another Kesuvah for her. If he married her and fled and afterwards settled with her, this is fine. If one was Mekadesh a pregnant or nursing woman, we do not force him to divorce her. He may not make Nisu'in until after the period of nursing or until the baby dies.
Rema: Some do not distinguish between Kidushin and Nisu'in. This is primary.
Rivash (ibid. DH v'Im): It seems that the Rambam does not make him divorce her, but we excommunicate him for transgressing a mid'Rabanan law. He holds that if we would force to divorce, it would not suffice if he fled. The Beraisa says 'if he made Nisu'in', he must divorce her. We have no source regarding Kidushin. Regarding Havchanah, even if he made Nisu'in he need not divorce her, for it is only three months. The Ra'avad, Ramban and Rashba obligate divorce in every case. The Beraisa mentions Nisu'in, for then even R. Yehudah agrees. The Halachah follows R. Meir's decree to force even an Arus. Rashi says that fleeing reveals that he does not plan to make Nisu'in until she finishes nursing, so we do not force him to divorce. If he showed intent to make Nisu'in, and only now fled, we excommunicate him until he divorces her. Perhaps fleeing suffices only for Havchanah, which is an Isur, but not for Meinekes Chavero, which is a danger.
TESTIMONY ABOUT OVERES AL DAS
Gemara
Question: If a wife was Overes Al Das (deviated from the modest ways of Bnos Yisrael), does she forfeit her Kesuvah even if she was not warned?
Since she acted immodestly, no warning is needed. Or, perhaps we must warn her. Maybe she will correct her behavior.
Answer (R. Chanina of Sura - Mishnah): Beis Din can warn the wife of a man who became deaf or insane, or was imprisoned.
She may not drink. She is warned, so that if she is secluded, she forfeits her Kesuvah. This teaches that she does not forfeit her Kesuvah without warning.
Kesuvos 72a (Mishnah): A woman is divorced without a Kesuvah for Overes Al Das.
Transgressing Das Moshe (Torah law) is feeding to him untithed food, having Bi'ah with him when she is Nidah, not separating Chalah, or vowing and transgressing her vows.
Question: What is the case of feeding to him untithed food?
If he knows that it is untithed, he should not eat it! If he does not know that it is untithed, how does he know that she fed him untithed food?
Answer: She said that Ploni separated the tithes. He asked Ploni, and found that she lied.
Question: How does he find out that she had Bi'ah with him when she was Nidah?
Answer #1: She saw a Kesem (blood stain), and said that Ploni ruled that it does not make her Nidah. He asked Ploni, and found that she lied.
Answer #2: She was established to be a Nidah among her neighbors.
The case of not separating Chalah is when she said that Ploni the kneader separated the Chalah. Her husband asked Ploni, and found that she lied.
Rishonim
Rif and Rosh (Kesuvos 32b and 7:9): We conclude that Overes Al Das forfeits her Kesuvah only if she was warned. The Yerushalmi says that if she was not warned, he divorces her and pays a Kesuvah.
(Rosh, ibid.): What forced the Gemara to say that he transgressed? Perhaps she tried to feed to him Isur, and he realized this and did not eat, but he wants to divorce her lest another time he will not know to refrain! It seems that in this case he could not divorce her for free (without a Kesuvah), for she could say that she was joking, and she would have told him before he ate. We conclude that she said that Ploni separated the tithes (or Chalah, or was Metaher her stain). He asked Ploni, and found that she lied. The Yerushalmi says that Ploni is not believed to make her lose her Kesuvah when she contradicts him. To make someone lose money we need two witnesses. I.e., they say that Ploni was not in the city at the time she says (that he separated or was Metaher). Alternatively, she denies that she told her husband that Ploni separated or was Metaher, and two witnesses refute her.
Ran (DH Gemara): The Ra'avad says that we did not say that she admitted to feeding to him Isur because a person cannot establish himself to be a Rasha. This is wrong. A person's admission is like 100 witnesses; she is believed to forfeit her Kesuvah. The Gemara did not establish the case like this because it is uncommon.
Ramban (cited in Rosh Shevu'os 4:17 and Ran, ibid.): I received the Halachah that in every case of Ed mi'Pi Ed, i.e. David testified based on what Levi told him, if Levi came and said differently, David is not believed to contradict him. A proof is from Kesuvos (72a). If a woman said that Ploni was Metaher her stain, and he contradicts her, she is not believed.
Rosh (ibid.): This is reasonable.
Question (Ran): The Yerushalmi says 'all of these are through witnesses.' Perhaps the Ramban explains that this does not include when she cites Ploni. The Rashba explains like the simple understanding of the Yerushalmi.
Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 24:11): Das Moshe is going out in the market with uncovered hair, taking vows or oaths and transgressing them, having Bi'ah with him when she is Nidah, not separating Chalah, or feeding to him Isur. The case is, she said that Ploni tithed produce or separated Chalah or was Metaher her stain, and after her husband ate or had Bi'ah with her he asked Ploni and Ploni said that he did not. The same applies if she was established to be a Nidah among her neighbors, and she told him that she is Tehorah and they had Bi'ah.
Rambam (14): Overes Al Das forfeits her Kesuvah only through warning and witnesses. If her husband saw her transgress and warned her without witnesses and she transgressed again, and she says that she did not transgress at all or was not warned, if he wants to divorce her he must pay a Kesuvah after she swears that she did not transgress.
Magid Mishneh: This is like any claim of money. He seeks to make her lose her Kesuvah, so he must bring proof. If he knows that she was Overes Al Das, he can make her swear. If he is unsure he cannot make her swear, for she holds the Kesuvah, and we do not establish people to be Resha'im (without proof). After paying her, he can make her swear Heses.
Beis Shmuel (EH 115:18): If she had Bi'ah with him while Nidah, she herself also transgressed. She is a Rasha, and may not swear. When she made only him transgress, she is not suspected to swear falsely.
Hagahos Maimoniyos (3): A case occurred in which Leah became friendly with Do'eg, and Do'eg threatened to kill her husband. Surely he may divorce her against her will, for she was Overes Al Das (for speaking with men). However, if she was not warned he must pay her Kesuvah.
Poskim
Shulchan Aruch (EH 115:1): If a wife was Overes Al Das Moshe, she leaves without a Kesuvah. E.g. she said that Ploni tithed this produce or permitted this piece or was Metaher this blood, and she was found to be lying. This is only if two witnesses contradicted her, e.g. they testify that at the time that she says that Ploni fixed the produce, Ploni was not in the city.
Chelkas Mechokek (4): The Rosh in Shevu'os and the Ran bring the Ramban's opinion that she is not believed to contradict Ploni. It seems that the Rambam agrees. Why did the Shulchan Aruch omit this opinion? She is not believed to contradict women neighbors who saw her wear Nidah clothing. Surely a Chacham should be believed! In Kesuvos, the Rosh said 'Ploni fixed this produce', i.e. I saw him. This is not like Ed mi'Pi Ed, therefore he is not believed to contradict her. When she says that Ploni was Metaher her stain, she herself does not know, therefore Ploni is believed. The Shulchan Aruch must discuss when she says that she herself knows that Ploni fixed the produce. However, Kitzur Piskei ha'Rosh connotes otherwise.
Beis Shmuel (4): The Beis Yosef (YD 183 DH b'Perek) says that the Chacham is believed that she is Nidah, but not to make her lose her Kesuvah, and the Rosh and Rashba agree with this. However, it seems that the Rambam believes the Chacham even regarding the Kesuvah.
Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): We also need witnesses that she told her husband that it is permitted, and that he relied on her and ate. If there are no witnesses and she denies it, she is believed.
Chelkas Mechokek (3): It is not enough to contradict her about one matter. Even if we find that she lied about Ploni fixing the produce, she can say that she told her husband before he ate (unless witnesses say otherwise).
Beis Shmuel (5): The Rosh connotes that it suffices for witnesses to contradict her about one matter.
Shulchan Aruch (2): If she was established to be a Nidah among her neighbors, i.e. they saw her wearing Nidah clothing, and she told him that she is Tehorah and they had Bi'ah, she leaves without a Kesuvah.
Chelkas Mechokek (4): We must say that she admits that they had Bi'ah, or witnesses saw the actual Bi'ah. Witnesses of seclusion are not enough, for perhaps she told him before they had Bi'ah.
Beis Shmuel (6): The Chelkas Mechokek says that if she admits that they had Bi'ah, she is not believed to say that she was Tehorah. A Migo (she could have denied that she had Bi'ah) is not believed against neighbors who saw her wear Nidah clothing, which is like testimony. Sometimes, a woman is believed to say that she was Tehorah, but wore Nidah clothing for a special reason. The Levush says that even then he divorces her for free, for people will suspect that he was Bo'el Nidah. This is wrong. She may be divorced for free for making him transgress, not for besmirching his reputation.
Rema (ibid.): If she became an apostate and repented, she is not Overes Al Das. She forfeits her Kesuvah only after warning.
Chelkas Mechokek (16): Capital cases require warning at the time of the transgression. This is not required here, but she must be warned that she will forfeit her Kesuvah.
Beis Shmuel (17): Shiltei ha'Giborim says that it suffices to warn her not to act indecently. We learn from warning a Sotah. It suffices to warn her not to be secluded; he need not say that she will forfeit her Kesuvah. Darchei Moshe cites Maharam, the Rashba and Rosh to say that she must be warned about losing her Kesuvah; one can dispel the proof from there. Rashi (Sotah 25a) says that the Gemara asked about warning for Das Yehudis. Das Moshe does not need warning, for she already caused him to transgress.
Beis Shmuel (8): If she willingly became an apostate, she is forbidden to him, for perhaps she was Mezanah. Even though he is unsure whether or not she was Mezanah, and perhaps he is not exempt from paying her Kesuvah, since she caused the Safek he need not pay.
Please Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Ben Gvir, Mr. Smotrich and Mr. Gallant unite and bring Hashem’s Righteousness back to the Har HaBayit? |
תחת צדקת השם הר הבית יהפוך לבית תפילה לכל העמים: יהודים, מוסלמים ונוצרים כשהם מסירים עבודה זרה ואת דוקטרינות השקר שלהם... על ידי ביטול הברית שנכרתה עם השלטונות האיסלאמיים בשנת 67' על הר הבית וכל שאר הבריתות, איסור על כל הפשעים והתועבות שנעשות על ידי הרשות הפלסטינית, חמאס והג'יהאד האסלאמי. והכרזת ריבונות יהודית על כל ארץ ישראל. |
Come let us Pray that Hashem's Righteousness shall 'return' to the Har haBayit and the whole of Eretz Israel. | בוא נתפלל שצדקת ה' 'תשוב' להר הבית ולארץ ישראל כולה. |
Free to study all Jewish Scripture: | חופשי ללמוד את כל כתבי הקודש היהודיים: |
Our Prayer and hope: All the gates to the Har haBayit have to be opened for Jews and non-Jews seven days in the week 24 hours a day. The Jews need to have the freedom to go with Tefillin, Tallit and Torah Scroll up on the Mountain to serve Hashem. And do קידה ('Kidah' prostate, laying down, before Hashem) Everyone showing his/her respect for the Jewish and all other religions. But NOT for the words/deeds/sins spoken against any word of the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu and the 'real' teachings of the Jewish Rabbis. The Jews must be the guardians of the Har haBayit. |
תפילתנו ותקוותנו: כל שערי הר הבית צריכים להיפתח עבור יהודים ולא-יהודים שבעה ימים בשבוע 24 שעות ביממה. ליהודים צריך להיות חופש ללכת עם תפילין, טלית וספר תורה במעלה ההר כדי לשרת את ה' ולקוד קידה .מתוך הפגנת כבוד ליהודים ולכל הדתות האחרות, אבל לא למילים/למעשים/לחטאים הנאמרים נגד תורת משה רבנו. מלמודי רבנים, היהודים חייבים להיות שומרי הר הבית. |
Let's pray for a death sentence for the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah and for the continuation of the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. The Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah must disappear. Enough of the hatred from the world (the USA, the European Union, and the UN!) against the Jewish people. |
בואו נתפלל לגזר דין מוות לרשות הפלסטינית, חמאס, חיזבאללה ולמען התיישבות יהודית ביהודה ושומרון. הרשות הפלסטינית, חמאס וחיזבאללה חייבים להעלם. די לשנאה מהעולם (ארה"ב, האיחוד האירופי והאו"ם!) נגד העם היהודי! |
| על היהודים מוטלת המשימה לשנות את הר הבית, ממצבו הקיים, לבית תפילה לכל העמים על פי חוק התורה של משה רבנו. |
Ariel, hopefully your Representee | אריאל, מקווה שהנציג שלך |
Click: If you have Prayer Requests Har HaBait Jewish Sovereign for all Israel I pray as a Jew when I bring your prayers. |
Comments
Post a Comment