64b----------------------------------------64b

1)

WHAT ESTABLISHES A WOMAN'S HUSBANDS TO DIE? [Katlanis]

(a)

Gemara

1.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If a woman circumcised two of her sons and they died, she should not circumcise her third son;

2.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she circumcises the third, but not a fourth.

3.

Question: Whom does the Halachah follow?

4.

Answer (Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef): There was a case of a woman whose two sons died in circumcision. R. Yochanan told her to circumcise her third son.

5.

Abaye (to Rav Yitzchak): You permit an Isur and a danger!

6.

Abaye relied on this and married Chomah, who had been widowed twice. Abaye died in her lifetime.

7.

Rava: Does anyone jeopardize his life like this?!

8.

Objection #1: Abaye himself said that we may rely on Avin, who reviews his learning, but not on Yitzchak, who does not!

9.

Objection #2: The Tana'im argue about circumcision. Do they argue about marriage? (Perhaps all forbid a two-time widow!)

10.

Answer (to Objection #2 - Beraisa - Rebbi): If a woman was widowed twice; she may not marry again;

i.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she may marry a third man, but not a fourth.

11.

Question: Granted, regarding circumcision, some families have weak blood and others have strong blood. But why should a woman have a Chazakah that her husbands will die?

12.

Answer #1 (R. Mordechai): It is due to Makor (a venereal disease).

13.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Her Mazel causes him to die.

14.

These answers argue about when (at least one of) her husbands died during Kidushin or fell from a tree (we can attribute this to Mazel, but not to Makor).

15.

Kesuvos 43b (Mishnah): If a girl was divorced from Eirusin and widowed from Eirusin (before Bagrus), her father gets the Kesuvah.

16.

Inference: The Tana discusses one who was divorced and widowed, but not one who was widowed twice, (for this is severe,) for then she could not remarry!

17.

The Mishnah is like Rebbi, who says that after she is widowed twice, the Chazakah is that her husbands will die.

(b)

Rishonim

1.

Rif (Kesuvos 15a): The Halachah follows Rebbi.

i.

Nimukei Yosef (Yevamos 20a DH Malah): The law of Milah and marriage (to a Katlanis) are the same. We rule like Rav Ashi (it depends on Mazel, even from Kidushin or through accidents), because he is Basra.

2.

Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 21:31): If a woman was widowed from two men she may not marry again. If she married a third man she may remain with him.

3.

Rosh (6:13): Presumably, Chazakah is established after two times regarding Milah and Katlanis, because we are lenient about Safek Nefashos.

(c)

Poskim

1.

Shulchan Aruch (EH 9:1): If a woman was married (Rema - or Mekudeshes) to two men and they died, she may not marry a third, for her Chazakah is that her husbands die.

i.

Note: Even though the Mechaber says 'Niseis', which connotes Nisu'in, surely he does not exclude Kidushin. (See the next entry.) The Rema explains that the Mechaber includes Kiushin.

ii.

Beis Yosef (DH v'Da and DH v'Chosav): The Halachah follows Rav Ashi, for he is Basra. Mazel is the cause, even if they died from Kidushin. The Rosh (Teshuvah 53:8) says that it is her Mazel to struggle financially, therefore her husbands die. A woman does not go outside; she has no one to support her. We cannot say that it is her Mazel that her husbands will die, for we do not find that this depends on Mazel.

iii.

Noda bi'Yehudah (1 EH 9 DH Michtavecha): According to this, if she was able to finance herself alone without her father we do not say that her Mazal caused the deaths.

iv.

Note: It seems that the concern is only whether or not she became poor. However, if so it should not matter whether her income came from herself or her father! No one says that Katlanis does not apply to a widow who was fed from the estate; perhaps being fed from her father is similar. It is not clear to me why this is different from her supporting herself.

v.

Ateres Paz (3 EH 3 DH Shuv): Since in any case a Pilegesh is not fed (she has no Kesuvah or Tanai Kesuvah), we do not attribute the death of her husbands to Mazal.

vi.

Note: Presumably, being a Katlanis would not forbid becoming a Pilegesh, since her Mazal will not make her new 'husband' die. We did not hear that she may remarry on condition that her new husband need not feed her. Perhaps we can explain like the Yavi'a Omer (brought below), but it seems that the Noda bi'Yehudah cannot hold like the Yavi'a Omer.

vii.

Yavi'a Omer (3: EH 15 DH Od): We can say that her Mazal to be poor causes her husbands to die only if her husband is obligated mid'Oraisa to feed her. Tosfos (Sukah 2a DH Ki) says that rain would not be called a curse during Sukos if the Isur to nail down the Sechach (in a way that rain will not enter) is only mid'Rabanan.

viii.

Ateres Paz (ibid., DH uv'Emes): A case occurred in which a man entered a burning house to save his money and was burned. This is not due to Mazal, since he endangered himself. However, Uryan Tlisai did not permit or forbid.

ix.

Igros Moshe (EH 1:26 DH u'Mah she'Chosav): The Chasam Sofer says that it could be her Mazal to be deprived of Onah (Bi'ah at regular intervals). If so, this applies also to a man who was widowed! Also, we find only that life, children and wealth depend on Mazel.

x.

Drishah (1): Some say that Chachamim forbade Katlanis lest Hash-m decreed that she marry a certain Ploni, so anyone else who marries her must die. This does not apply to a man widowed twice, for a man may have many wives. The Maharshal refutes this. The Gemara says that the concern is Makor or Mazel. Also, if it was decreed that she marry Ploni, how did Chachamim forbid her to marry? If Hash-m cancels His decree due to Chachamim's, why did her second husband die?

xi.

Yavi'a Omer (3: EH 5:3) Since we are concerned for Mazal, this is even if her husbands were sick and old when they died.

xii.

Ramban (really, Rashba, cited in Beis Yosef DH ubi'Teshuvos): A case occurred, and someone permitted a Katlanis to remarry. I do not know his source. Perhaps one of the husbands did not die naturally, and he rules that the concern is Makor. However, I say that the Halachah follows Rav Ashi, that the concern is Mazel, so it applies no matter how her husbands died.

xiii.

Terumas ha'Deshen 211 (cited in Beis Yosef DH uvi'Terumas): Some say that if the men died through a pestilence from the air or there was a decree against the Tzibur, this is Makas Medinah and we do not attribute it to Mazel. Bava Metzi'a 105b supports this a bit. Chachamim say that one who rented a field pays the full rental even if the crop was stricken by locusts or withered (by the sun or wind), unless the entire province was stricken. It seems that Sefer Chasidim (461) rules that Makor is the cause, and that the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel. However, he permits to a fifth husband, so one should not rely on this.

2.

Rema: Some say that this is only if they died normally, but if one was killed, died through Dever, fell from the roof or similar matters, we are not concerned. Therefore, many are lenient about these and we do not protest.

i.

Beis Yosef (DH veha'Rivash): The Rivash says that many people were lenient when one husband died through Dever, and the Gedolei ha'Dor did not protest. We do not attribute Makas Medinah to Mazel (Bava Metzi'a 105b); however, this is only if the majority of the city died. Perhaps it suffices for three deaths for each 500 men (fitting to go to war) in the city on three consecutive days (we fast over such Dever). If they died from a different sickness, one should be stringent, for the Gemara (Bava Metzi'a 106a) did not resolve a similar question.

ii.

Teshuvas Ateres Paz (1:3 EH 3 DH uv'Emes): Even though the Rashba says that the concern is Mazel, so it applies no matter how her husbands died, this does not apply if one was killed. We cannot say that her Mazel would cause that someone else will choose to be a Rasha and kill her husband. Similarly, if one killed himself (and loses also the world to come) we cannot attribute this to her Mazel.

iii.

Note: The Gra (2) bring a support for the Pesak that one need not divorce a Katlanis from Yehudah, who kept Tamar (Sotah 10b). This suggests that Katlanis applies even when her husbands were killed (by Hash-m) for their Aveiros! However, Yehudah did not have witnesses saying why they died, so perhaps we may infer that in any case one may keep her.

iv.

Divrei Chayim (EH 1:13 DH ul'Fi): Rav Ashi is also concerned for Mazal, but all agree that this is only after three deaths. Rebbi forbids after two only if both died naturally, after Nisu'in.

v.

Afarkasta d'Anya (EH 146 DH Shuv): We do not find anyone concerned for sisters who were widowed. This is because even Rav Mordechai is concerned for Makor only when Mazal causes it to kill the husbands, i.e. of one woman.

See also:

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF