IS MARRIAGE REVERSIBLE?
Suggestion: If she returns to her father's house (after she was given to her husband's Sheluchim), perhaps she reverts to be an Arusah!
Rejection (Rava - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question: "The vow of a widow or divorcee will stand" - this is obvious! She is not in the Reshus of her father, nor her husband (so no one can annul it)!
Answer: The verse discusses one who was given to the husband's Sheluchim, and was widowed or divorced on the way.
Question: Is she considered to be in her father's house, or in her husband's?
Answer: "Her vow will stand" teaches that (her father cannot annul, for) she does not return to her father's house.
(Rav Papa): A Mishnah teaches the law of the Beraisa (48b 5:a, that once she was given to the husband's Sheluchim she is not stoned):
(Mishnah): One is stoned only for a Na'arah Besulah Me'orasah in her father's house.
Question: Granted, Na'arah Besulah Me'orasah excludes a Bogeres, a non-virgin and a Nesu'ah. Why does it say 'in her father's house'?
Answer: This excludes one who was given to the husband's Sheluchim.
(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Another Mishnah (Sanhedrin 89a) also teaches this:
(Mishnah): If a woman entered her husband's Reshus for Nisu'in, even though there was no Bi'ah, if someone else has Bi'ah with her he is strangled.
She only 'entered the husband's Reshus' (i.e. without Chupah).
A MAN'S OBLIGATION TO FEED HIS CHILDREN
(Mishnah): A man is not obligated to feed his daughter;
R. Elazar ben Azaryah expounded this in Kerem b'Yavneh. [It says in the Kesuvah] 'the sons inherit and the daughters are fed.' Just like the sons inherit only after the father dies, the daughters are fed only after his death.
(Gemara) Inference: He is not obligated to feed his daughter, but must feed his son. Also, there is no obligation to feed her, but there is a Mitzvah to feed her!
Question: Our Mishnah is not like any Tana in the following Beraisa!
(Beraisa - R. Meir): It is a Mitzvah to feed one's daughters, and all the more so one's sons, since they engage in Torah;
R. Yehudah says, it is a Mitzvah to feed one's sons and all the more so one's daughters, to prevent their disgrace;
R. Yochanan ben Berokah says, it is an obligation to feed the daughters after the father dies. In his lifetime, neither sons nor daughters are fed.
The Mishnah is not like R. Meir or R. Yehudah. They say it is a Mitzvah (not an obligation) to feed sons!
It is not like R. Yochanan ben Berokah. He says there is no Mitzvah to feed either!
Answer #1: The Mishnah can be like R. Meir.
A man is not obligated to feed his daughter. The same applies to his son. There is a Mitzvah to feed his daughter, and all the more so his son.
The Mishnah discussed the daughter to teach that even regarding a daughter, (there is no obligation, but) there is a Mitzvah.
Answer #2: The Mishnah can be like R. Yehudah.
A man is not obligated to feed his daughter, and all the more so his son. There is a Mitzvah to feed his son, all the more so his daughter.
The Mishnah discussed the daughter, to teach that even regarding a daughter, there is no obligation.
Answer #3: The Mishnah can be like R. Yochanan ben Berokah.
A man is not obligated to feed his daughter. The same applies to his son. There is not even a Mitzvah to feed them.
Since the Seifa says that there is an obligation to feed a daughter after the father dies, the Reisha said that there is no obligation during his lifetime.
(R. Ila'a citing Reish Lakish citing R. Yosi bar Chanina): In Usha it was enacted that a man feed his children while they are small.
Question: Does the Halachah follow this?
Answer: When such cases came in front of Rav Yehudah, he would say that 'a serpent had a child, and is throwing (responsibility for feeding) it on the city.' (Ran - he would not force the father to feed them. This shows that the Halachah does not follow R. Ila'a. It seems that the Rambam disagrees. He says that there is an enactment to feed children.)
When such cases came in front of Rav Chisda, he would command to make him publicly declare about himself 'a raven wants children, but this man does not.'
Question: A raven does not feed its children - "To young ravens that cry for food"!
Answer: It does not feed its children when they are white, but it feeds them when they are black.
When such cases came in front of Rava, he would ask 'Do you want that they should be fed from Tzedakah?'
This is if the father is not rich. If he is, we force him to feed them (just like we force him to give Tzedakah);
Rava forced Rav Nasan bar Ami to give 400 Zuz to Tzedakah.
ONE WHO GAVE HIS PROPERTY TO HIS CHILDREN
(R. Ila'a citing Reish Lakish): In Usha they enacted that if one gave all his property to his children, he and his wife are fed from it.
Objection (R. Zeira): We learned a bigger Chidush, that a widow is fed from his property (in the case below). We need not hear that he and his wife are fed!
(Ravin): If a man died and left a widow and a daughter, the widow is fed from his property, even if the daughter remarried. (A husband is like one who bought his wife's property. Normally, we do not take property from buyers to feed a widow. Here we do, since he did not pay for it.)
(R. Yosi bar Chanina's nephew): A case occurred in which the daughter died. They ruled that the widow is fed from the property (that her son-in-law inherited).
Answer: We must hear that he and his wife are fed. One might have thought that a widow is fed because there is no one to fend for her, but the husband can fend for himself and his wife!
Question: Does the Halachah follow R. Ila'a?
Answer: R. Chanina saw a man kiss R. Yochanan's feet. He had written his property to his sons, and R. Yochanan coerced the sons to feed him;
If letter of the law says that the son need not feed him, we understand why he needed to coerce them (Rashi - and therefore the man was so thankful);
But if the sons must feed him, why does it say that he coerced them (verbally? He should have beaten them until they complied! - R. Tam)