More Discussions for this daf
1. Support to a widowed Arusah with a questionable Get 2. "Besulim"
DAF DISCUSSIONS - KESUVOS 97

Mordechai Schwimmer asked:

The Gemara (97b) states, that according to Ulla, the very last segment of the Mishnah (97a), deals with the case of a divorce of questionable validity.

Since the husband is the one who put his wife in the situation where she cannot remarry, he is obligated to provide her support until her status is resolved.

Rashi in D"H Megureshes, interprets this case to involve an Arusah, and the Mishnah teaches us that she is not entitled to support from the inheritors in the event that the Arus passes away. In the next D"H, Rashi explains, that no money can be extracted when the circumstances are in doubt!

Tosfos take a different approach, yet agree to Rashi's assertion that no support can be collected from the heirs because of the uncertainty surrounding the divorce. The obvious question arises. After the death of the Aruss, the status of the divorce is completely inconsequential. the Arussa is now freed of her captive state and allowed to remarry, voiding the cause that allocated her support in the first place. This widowed Arussa has 'certainly' no claim to Mezonos. Why do Rashi and Tosfos interpose a Sofek in here?!

Thanks,

Mordechai Schwimmer, Brooklyn, USA

The Kollel replies:

The question begins earlier, even when she is Safek Megureshes why does she eat if she was an Arusah, since an Arusah does not eat. From this we see that we treat a Safek Megureshes like an Arusah whose "time has come" who is entitled to receive Mezonos from her husband. Therefore, even after he died we could say thay she should eat just like an Arusah after the time of Nesu'in has arrived.

To this, Rashi answers that since she was only a Safek Arusah she is not supported by him after he dies (see Tosfos ha'Rosh). We include a copy of our Insights on this subject, below.

D. Zupnik

====================================

2) A HUSBAND'S OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HIS DIVORCED WIFE

QUESTIONS: The Tana Kama of the Mishnah says that a widow may sell the property of her husband's heirs (the Yesomim) outside of Beis Din, to raise proceeds to buy Mezonos for herself or even to collect her Kesuvah. Rebbi Shimon does not permit her to sell their property outside of Beis Din in order to collect her Kesuvah.

The Amora'im give two reasons why, according to the Tana Kama, the widow is permitted to sell the property of the Yesomim outside of Beis Din in order to collect her Kesuvah. Ula says that the Chachamim enacted, for the woman's benefit, that it be easier for her to collect her Kesuvah even after her husband dies so that women will not refrain from marrying because of the potential difficulties that they might encounter when trying to collect the Kesuvah ("Mishum Chen"). Rebbi Yochanan says that it is because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced by having to go to Beis Din to collect her Kesuvah, and thus the husband married her with the condition in mind that she may sell his property after his death to collect her Kesuvah without having to go to Beis Din.

The Gemara says that the following Mishnah -- which says that a Gerushah (a divorced woman) cannot sell the property of Yesomim outside of Beis Din in order to collect her Kesuvah -- is expressing the view of Rebbi Shimon, who says that a widow cannot sell the property to collect her Kesuvah outside of Beis Din. The Gemara asks how can that Mishnah be expressing the view of Rebbi Shimon? Rebbi Shimon already says in our Mishnah that a Gerushah cannot sell property to collect her Kesuvah outside of Beis Din, because he says "Kol she'Ein Lah Mezonos" cannot collect outside of Beis Din, and this must be referring to a Gerushah!

The Gemara answers that the Mishnah, when it says "Kol she'Ein Lah Mezonos" is not referring to a Gerushah, but to a Safek Gerushah (where the husband threw a Get to his wife and there is a doubt whether it was closer to her or closer to him). Rebbi Zeira says that in such a case the husband is obligated to give her Mezonos while she is married (before he gives her a full divorce).

RASHI (DH Megureshes) says that according to the Gemara's answer, our Mishnah is teaching that when a woman's husband dies during Erusin, the woman does not receive Mezonos from the Yesomim if she was a Safek Gerushah.

Rashi's words are difficult to understand.

(a) How can Rashi say that our Mishnah is saying that a woman who is a Safek Gerushah from Erusin does not receive Mezonos after her husband's death, implying that as long as her husband is alive she does receive Mezonos from him? A husband during Erusin is not obligated to feed his Arusah! Only after Nesu'in does a husband become obligated to feed his wife! If he gives her a Safek Get during Erusin, why should he suddenly become obligated to feed her? Only a husband during Nesu'in who gives his wife a Safek Get should have to continue feeding his wife since he did not give her a full divorce and he was already obligated to feed her! (MAHARSHA)

(b) Why does Rashi explain the Gemara in such a forced way by saying that the Mishnah is referring to a Safek Gerushah from Erusin? Rashi should have said that it is referring to a Safek Gerushah from Nesu'in!

(c) Rashi says that the Mishnah is teaching that the husband during Erusin must give Mezonos to his Arusah who is a Safek Gerushah only while he is alive. After his death, the Yesomim do not have to feed her. Why should the Mishnah have to teach us that? The only reason a husband must give Mezonos to a Safek Gerushah is because she cannot remarry because of him, but now that he is dead she can get remarried! Hence, it is obvious that the Yesomim should not be obligated to give her Mezonos! (TOSFOS DH la'Asuyei)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH (see also PNEI YEHOSHUA) discusses our first point. He explains that Rashi apparently holds that even a husband during Erusin must feed his Arusah if he makes her into a Safek Gerushah, even though he is not obligated to feed her when she is fully his Arusah and not a Safek Gerushah.

The reason the Chachamim enacted that he must feed her when she becomes a Safek Gerushah is because he is the one preventing her from getting married to anyone else. Normally, a husband during Erusin cannot indefinitely prevent his wife from marrying someone else. After a certain period of time, he must either marry her himself, or she can demand that he free her from her commitment by divorcing her. However, the Safek Gerushah from Erusin has no assurance that her husband will ever marry her; her husband can say that since she is a Safek Gerushah, he does not want to perform Nesu'in because perhaps she is actually divorced from him (and since Nesu'in involves a monetary obligation, "ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Ra'ayah"). On the other hand, she cannot marry anyone else because she is prohibited as a Safek Eshes Ish. Therefore, the husband must give her Mezonos right away during Erusin, since he is preventing her from getting married with no other options for her to follow.

The Tosfos ha'Rosh adds that a Safek Gerushah during Erusin is comparable to a situation where a husband refuses to marry his Arusah after twelve months, in which case he is then obligated to give her Mezonos (or divorce her).

(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH (see also PNEI YEHOSHUA) answers the second question as well. Rashi is forced to explain that the Mishnah is discussing a Safek Gerushah during Erusin, because if the Mishnah is saying that a Safek Gerushah cannot collect her Kesuvah nor her Mezonos from the Yesomim, then why would the following Mishnah have to tell us that a definite Gerushah cannot collect her Kesuvah from the Yesomim (according to Rebbi Shimon)? It is already implied by the previous Mishnah!

This is why Rashi explains that the first Mishnah is discussing a Safek Gerushah during Erusin , who does not have a claim to "Chen," as the Gemara explained. The next Mishnah tells us that a definite Gerushah from Nesu'in also may not sell property for her Kesuvah outside of Beis Din, even though she does have a claim to "Chen."

(c) Rashi holds that there is a reason to suggest that a Safek Gerushah should be able to collect her Mezonos from the Yesomim even after her husband's death. The reasoning for this is that when a man gives his wife a Safek Get, the Chachamim want to give the husband an incentive to give her a valid Get as soon as possible. We might have thought that to this purpose the Chachamim enacted that if he does not give her a Get before he dies, she may continue to collect Mezonos from his estate even after his death, until the Yesomim give her the Kesuvah, just like an widow. Hence, the Mishnah is teaching that the Chachamim did not impose such a penalty on the husband and did not have such considerations. (M. Kornfeld)

Mordechai Schwimmer asks:

In answer to your reply on this subject.

There was no problem in my question with the support for this Arussa while the Aruss was alive.

As was pointed out in the question, since the Aruss is the one who put her in this state where she cannot remarry, he is obligated to provide her support until her status is resolved.

The Aruss is delaying her support from another man by the amount of time that elapses between the moment of the questionable divorce and his death or a valid divorce, even if this entire time period is before "her time has come".

Therefore, the last line of the Tosfos HaRosh introducing the notion of "Higia ha'Zeman", needs close scrutiny.

There is no need to treat this Safek Megureshes Arussa as one whose "time has come".

Although a regular Arussa does not have support, this Arussa is entitled to support from the time of the questionable Get to the time that she is freed up for another man,by virtue of the simple arithmetic outlined above.

The Tosfos HaRosh states "it is 'kemo' 'like' Higia ha'Zeman".

Clearly, the Tosfos haRosh is merely drawing an 'analogy' between this Arussa and an Arussa whose "time has come".

Just like in that case it is the fault of the Aruss and therefore he must provide support, 'similarly' here it is the doing of the Aruss, and she is entitled to support.

The last paragraph of part (a) of the ANSWERS section in the Insights, concurs to this interpretation. written there is, "a Safek Gerushah during Erusin is 'comparable' to etc.".

Therefore, we are still facing the original question, this Arussa is 'certainly' not entitled to support after the Aruss passes away. Why do Rashi and Tosfos resort here to a Safek and extracting money on a Safek ?!

As an aside, the underlaying assumption, that an ordinary Arussa which is not a Safek Megureshes, whose "time has come", continues to receive support from the heirs of the Aruss after he passed away is a Machlokes Rishonim.

The Ramban, among others, holds that she does, while HaNagid and Talmidei Rabeinu Yona are of the opinion that she does not (see Shita Mekubetses to 53b).

Mordechai Schwimmer, Brooklyn, USA

The Kollel replies:

We addressed your question in the Insights. I include the appropriate section below.

Best wishes, Mordecai Kornfeld

QUESTIONS:

(c) Rashi says that the Mishnah is teaching that the husband during Erusin must give Mezonos to his Arusah who is a Safek Gerushah only while he is alive. After his death, the Yesomim do not have to feed her. Why should the Mishnah have to teach us that? The only reason a husband must give Mezonos to a Safek Gerushah is because she cannot remarry because of him, but now that he is dead she can get remarried! Hence, it is obvious that the Yesomim should not be obligated to give her Mezonos! (TOSFOS DH la'Asuyei)

ANSWERS:

(c) Rashi holds that there is a reason to suggest that a Safek Gerushah should be able to collect her Mezonos from the Yesomim even after her husband's death. The reasoning for this is that when a man gives his wife a Safek Get, the Chachamim want to give the husband an incentive to give her a valid Get as soon as possible. We might have thought that to this purpose the Chachamim enacted that if he does not give her a Get before he dies, she may continue to collect Mezonos from his estate even after his death, until the Yesomim give her the Kesuvah, just like an widow. Hence, the Mishnah is teaching that the Chachamim did not impose such a penalty on the husband and did not have such considerations. (M. Kornfeld)