Previous Daf

KESUVOS 3

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) The Rabanan can validate a Get that min ha'Torah, is Pasul - due to the fact that anyone who marries, does so according to the whim of the Rabanan (that the Kidushin's validity depends upon their decision).
(b) Ravina asked Rav Ashi that if this easily understood by Kidushei Kesef - where the Chachamim have the authority to render the money Hefker, how will they explain it by Kidushei Bi'ah?
(c) Rav Ashi explained that - even by Kidushei Bi'ah, the Rabanan simply turned the Bi'ah into a Bi'as Zenus.
(d) We refute the opinion that Ravina's query is based on the fact that whereas Kidushei Kesef is d'Rabanan, Kidushei Bi'ah is d'Oraysa - inasmuch as, seeing as we learn Kidushei Kesef from a Gezeirah-Shavah ("Kichah" "Kichah" from the field of Efron), it cannot be d'Rabanan. And besides, if it was, how could Beis Din put to death anyone who subsequently commits adultery (and it is a fact that they can)?!

click for question
2)
(a) In the second Lashon, Rava compares Gitin to Kidushin ('Yesh Ones b'Gitin'). We deal with the three cases that we cited in the first Lashon using reverse arguments (what was before a proof, is now a Kashya ... ). We try to extrapolate from the Mishnah in Gitin, which nullifies a Get in a case where the husband stipulated that it will be valid should he fail to return within thirty days, and he dies within that time-period - that had he merely became ill, the Get would be valid (because 'Ein Ones b'Gitin', a Kashya on Rava).
(b) We answer that the Tana mention specifically Get - to teach us the principle 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah' (in which case we cannot extrapolate anything from it).
(c) Even though we already learned this principle in the Reisha, the Tana sees fit to repeat it - in order to preclude the opinion of Raboseinu, who permitted to get married, as we learned earlier.

click for question
3)
(a) We query Rava further from the Beraisa, which validates the Get in a case where the husband stipulated 'from now if I do not return within twelve months', and he died within the twelve months period. We assume that the same ruling would have applied even if he had fallen ill and not died.
(b) We answer that the Tana specifically presented the case of where the husband died, because he wanted to prevent his wife from having to perform Yibum (but had he fallen ill, the Get would be invalid (because of 'Yesh Ones b'Gitin').

click for question
4)
(a) In the case where a man arrived just outside town the last day of the thirty-day stipulation - he still had the bridge to cross as the time ran out, and he called out 'See I'm coming; see' I'm coming!'
(b) Shmuel ruled - that the Get was valid because of the principle 'Ein Ones b'Gitin' (a Kashya of Rava in the second Lashon).
(c) We reconcile this with Rava's second Lashon - by differentiating between a foreseeable Ones (such as this one, which the husband should have anticipated), and one which is not foreseeable.

click for question
5)
(a) Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak states that the Din in our Mishnah 'Besulah Nises' applies only to the era of Ezra and onwards, when Beis-Din began convening on Monday and Thursday, but not before. He told us this, in spite of the principle 'What has passed, has passed' - to indicate that the same will apply today to any town where Beis-Din do not convene on Monday and Thursday.
(b) Consequently - nowadays, a Besulah may marry any day of the week.
(c) Takanas 'Shakdu' is still maintained - because one may only marry on another day provided he spent at least three days (including days prior to Shabbos) preparing for the wedding.
(d) Despite the fact that Shmuel already taught us 'Shakdu', we need to ask 'Mai Shakdu?' and then to cite a Beraisa, - because, if 'Shakdu' would not be a Mishnah or a Beraisa, how could we query other Amora'im from a source which they are entitled to argue?!

click for question
6)
(a) When, in the time of danger, the people adopted the custom - to get married on Tuesday - the Chachamim turn a blind eye to it.
(b) They permitted them to marry even on Monday - when there was an Ones (which we will explain shortly).
(c) The same Beraisa informs us that they would separate the Chasan and Kalah (if she was a Besulah) on Friday night - if they were due to perform their first Bi'ah, because drawing blood involves making a wound.

click for question
7)
(a) If the time of danger were to refer to a decree that anyone who married on Wednesday would be killed - then why did Chazal not revoke the Takanah to marry on Wednesday altogether (since Piku'ach Nefesh [life-danger] takes precedence over a Takanas Chachamim).
(b) In fact, Rabah explains, it refers to the decree - that every virgin who married on Wednesday had first to make Bi'ah with the Nochri administrator.
(c) Despite the fact that, due to the Tzenu'os who gave up their lives rather than acquiesce to such a terrible decree, it now fell under the category of 'Piku'ach Nefesh', they did not just teach them that Oneis is permitted, on account of ...
1. ... 'Prutzos' - immoral women who would acquiesce willingly and then maintain that they had done so under threat of death; and ...
2. ... Kohanos (who would then have become forbidden to their husbands even b'Ones, and) who would nevertheless give up their lives rather than become forbidden to their husbands, preferring to let the people unofficially change the Minhag ...
(d) ... rather than simply revoke the Takanah of 'Besulah Nises ... ' in face of the decree - because, they reckoned, sooner or later, the decree would come to an end (which is the reason that one never revokes a Takanah on account of a decree).

click for question
8)
The women reckoned that if they married on Tuesday, they were safe from the decree - because they knew that the administrator would not take the trouble to enter the town on the off-chance that there may be a wedding that day (only if it was a fixed Takanas Chachamim).

click for question
9)
(a) The Beraisa permits the Besulos to marry even on Monday, when there is an Ones. This cannot be referring to the decree of which we spoke earlier - because, why then, would they refer to it before as 'danger', and here as 'Ones'?! And besides, before the Tana said that they adopted the custom, whilst here, he says that it is permitted!
(b) Rava therefore explains - that it refers to the commander of the army, who would enter the town during the latter part of the week, and, based on the Takanah that the Besulos marry on Wednesday, he would confiscate all the food that they had prepared for the wedding-feast.
(c) We do not just postpone the wedding until the following Wednesday - because we are speaking when the commander was in town on a long-term basis.
(d) We permit them to marry already on Monday, and not on Tuesday (as in the case of Sakanah) - because the commander's men tended to come into town the day before his arrival (i.e. on Tuesday) to prepare for his arrival (and they too, would be on the lookout for good food for their chief).

click for question
10)
(a) In a second explanation (to interpret Ones), we cite a Beraisa, which discusses the case of the Chasan's father or the Kalah's mother who died on Monday, who is then permitted to marry on Monday - because otherwise, they will become Avelim (mourners), in which case marriage will be prohibited.
(b) In spite of the fact that the respective parent died before the Chupah began, the Aveilus does not take precedence over the marriage - because the Tana is speaking when the animals have already been Shechted, the bread baked and the wine, diluted, in which case, it cannot be kept until after the termination of the Aveilus (and delaying the wedding will result in a big monetary loss).
(c) The procedure is - to move the deceased into a side-room, and go ahead and take the Chasan and Kalah under the Chupah. After the Be'ilas Mitzvah, the Chasan separates from his wife, and they proceed to celebrate the seven days of Sheva Berachos.
(d) The Chasan and Kalah observe the seven days of mourning - after the termination of the seven days of Sheva Berachos.
(e) The Tana refers specifically to where the Chasan's father or the Kalah's mother died, and not the other way round - because it is the father of the Chasan who prepares the wedding-feast, and the mother of the Kalah who prepares the Kalah's make-up (and having to abandon these preparations due to their demise, will result in a total loss; whereas the other way round, they will be able to replace the loss after the termination of the Aveilus).

click for question
11)
(a) The current ruling is based on the principle - that a wedding is considered the Chasan and Kalah's private Yom Tov, which overrides private mourning.
(b) Nevertheless, we obligate the Chasan and Kalah to sleep separately - because it is only public acts of mourning that are overruled by one's private Yom Tov, but not those that are performed discreetly (Devarim she'be'Tzin'ah), which therefore remain forbidden.

Next Daf