why is the punishment for being neglectful with a monetart obligation (whichever explanation, rashi or tosfos), the death of one's wife? I looked up the posuk in nach and did not see this addressed by the commentaries.
dovid roness, white oak, p.a . u.s.a.
Greetings Dovid,
We addressed your question in our Insights to Zevachim. Below is what we wrote. If this does not answer your question, let us know.
Y. Shaw
D.A.F.
Jerusalem, Israel
2) ONE'S WIFE DIES WHEN HE HAS NO MONEY TO GIVE TO THOSE WHO ASK
OPINIONS: The Gemara explains that Ben Azai understands that the verse, "v'Hayah Becha Chet" -- "It shall be a sin for you" (Devarim 23:22), is teaching that the Isur of Bal Te'acher, the prohibition of delaying the fulfillment of a vow, affects only the person who transgresses it, and it does not affect his wife. The Gemara asks that this should be obvious, and there should be no need for a verse to teach this. The Gemara answers that since Rebbi Eliezer says that a person's wife dies if people ask him for money and he does not have any (as he derives from a verse in Mishlei), we might have thought that a wife also dies from her husband's sin of Bal Te'acher. Therefore, we need the verse of "v'Hayah Becha Chet" to teach that a wife does not die because of her husband's violation of Bal Te'acher.
To what situation does Rebbi Eliezer refer when he says that a man's wife dies when he has no money to give to those who ask?
(a) RASHI (DH Mevakshin) says that Rebbi Eliezer is referring to one who stole money or other property. When the owner comes to claim his money, the thief has no money to pay back.
(b) TOSFOS (DH Ela) says that Rebbi Eliezer refers to a man who pledged to give a donation to charity and failed to fulfill his pledge. Rebbi Eliezer's statement is consistent with the Gemara in Shabbos (32b) which says that a man's wife dies as a result of his violation of his vows. This seems problematic, though, because Rebbi Eliezer is saying that a woman dies as a result of her husband's failure to uphold his vows, while Ben Azai is saying that a woman does not die as a result of her husband's failure to uphold his vows! The answer, as Tosfos points out, is simply that Ben Azai is referring to a sin of Bal Te'acher; the man delayed, but eventually fulfilled, his Neder. Ben Azai's teaching complements Rebbi Eliezer's; he is saying that Rebbi Eliezer's statement applies only when the man does not pay at all, but not when he is late in paying. (See MARGOLIYOS HA'YAM, Sanhedrin 22a, #20.)
According to the explanations of both Rashi and Tosfos, this Gemara needs clarification. Why should a woman die because of her husband's sin?
RAV CHAIM SHMUELEVITZ zt'l in SICHOS MUSAR (5732, #32, and 5733, #1) explains that the woman is punished only when she also has sins for which she deserves to die. Why, then, is her punishment related to her husband?
We know that Hash-m does not punish an individual if the punishment will significantly affect those who are close to him when those others are not deserving of such punishment. In the case of our Gemara, Hash-m would not punish the man by making his wife die as punishment for her sins unless he was also guilty of a severe sin. Rebbi Eliezer is saying that we see from the verse in Mishlei that this sin -- of violating one's vow -- is enough to make a man deserve the suffering of his wife's demise.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz continues to explain why the punishment is fitting in this case. He explains that there never really exists a situation in which a person "does not have the money to pay." When a person recognizes his debt, he will always find a way to pay. If he does not acknowledge his debt, then it is a sign that he does not feel that he is a "Ba'al Chov" -- one who is indebted. The punishment for this is that his wife is then punished for her sins and he has to suffer the consequences. This is because the most important person to whom a person is indebted is his wife, because it is she who constantly and ceaselessly stands by his side, serving as his devoted helpmate in life. A man who demonstrates a lack of a sense of indebtedness to others who help him in his business affairs is also most likely to be lacking Hakaras ha'Tov towards his wife as well. Hash-m therefore does not prevent his wife from being punished and taken away from him.
(c) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES suggests another explanation. He says that Rebbi Eliezer is discussing a man who owes money, who tells his creditors that he cannot pay them back with the property that he has, because the property is already a lien towards the payment of his wife's Kesuvah. The man's wife supports his claim, and for her involvement in preventing the creditors to collect what they are entitled to collect, she is punished. (See also BEN YEHOYADA in Sanhedrin 22a, and Insights to Rosh Hashanah 6:1.) (Y. Montrose)
Thank you so much for your research and response.
If you don't mind me taking some more of your time, I have the following question: It seems as though the Shita Mekubetzes you quoted follows the view of Rashi and not Tosfos, as acc. to Tosfos there is no real claim and counterclaim so you never have the wife supporting his false excuse. If so, how would Tosfos answer explain the punishment?( It would seem difficult to say that Tosfos would say the same thing as R'Shmuelevitz zt"l and Rashi and Tosfos argue on who's reason is correct)
Somthing else which troubles me about the shita is, in the case of bal t'acher, what would I think without the Posuk "b'choh chait"? who is claiming it? Perhaps the gizbor or bais din.
Also, acc. to the Shita Mekubetzes, the wife didn't really do much. Her suport of her husband's claim has no halachik ramifications in terms of his believability. Perhaps the pshat is that since if she would contest her husband's claim and said the land is not m'shubad for the Kesuvoh, she woukd be believed because of hoda'as ba'al din, Bais din will therfore always ask her and by not being Modeh, she is collaborating with her husband.
Even if that is correct, it is difficult to understand why she receives such a punishment! How is this different than any other case of deceit? The only difference I could think of is the fact that she is his wife, and supposed to be an aizer kinegdo. By not doing her job, she no longer deserves to be alive. Such a p'shat is a very big chidush and I am apprehensive about it. Please tell me what you think.
Many thanks for your time and knowlage, Dovid
dovid roness, white oak, p.a . u.s.a.
Dovid,
As you pointed out, we can explain Tosfos using the explanation of R' Shmulevitz. The argument between Rashi and Tosfos seems to be in what scenario do we say this serious statement that one's wife will die for this transgression. By giving a case of theft, Rashi implies that only for a directly open crime can this punishment occur, while Tosfos says that this can even happen to someone who originally pledged money to a good cause and does not fulfill his pledge.
Regarding what the Shitah would think without "b'Choh Chet," one could say your explanation that the gizbor or gabai is asking for the pledge, and the lady is ensuring that they do not receive it.
The Shitah's explanation does not seem to be that she would be believed because of Hoda'as Ba'al Din. If she is supposed to lie and say that the land is not Meshu'abad to her, the husband could easily ask her to produce her Kesuvah. If you would say that she is supposed to be Mochel her Kesuvah or the Zechus she has to collect from this land, this would also seem unreasonable. Why should she have to sacrifice her money when her husband can find any excuse not to give? Even if she would do this, he might say the land is Meshu'abad to someone else! My understanding of the Shitah is that this woman's action shows that she is the reason behind his attitude not to fulfill his pledges to Tzedakah. Even though this is not apparent from the words of the Shita, I think this is apparent from your question. What is the Halachic siginificance of her statement? Furthermore, why is she saying anything? The Shita does not say that someone approached her to confirm that her husband's land is Meshu'abad to her! It appears that her volunteering her "Haskamah" shows that she is the one who ensures her husband does not pay this pledge, and therefore she is the one who deserves to die.
Hatzlacha Raba,
Y. Montrose
Dear R' Montrose,
I enjoyed receiving and reading your response to my questions. Unfortunately, I have no chavrusoh for Rosh Hashonoh, so a chance to discuss it with you is truly a treat!
I must say that it seems we have a completly different understanding of the Shitoh in Zvochim. My understanding is that the Shitoh learns the Gemorah as follows: The husband was approached for a debt he had to a different party. When finally approached by Bais din, he claimed to not have any free assets with which to pay, as all his possesions were meshubad to the kesuvoh. This means that if the kesuvoh was for 200 zuz, that is what his (known) assets amounted to. His wife confirmed this story which was, in fact, a lie (he had more).
The reasn why she is asked by Bais din, as I said, is because she has believability if she says the land is not meshubad to her based on hoda'as bal din. Bais din would obviously persue every avenue available to ascertain the truth and would therefore inquire of her. The avairoh she did was lie in order for her husband to illegally profit!
I am unsure of exactly how you understood the Shitoh. From some of your words it seems as though she is a defendant against her husband the plaintiff. also, as you mentioned, your explanation does not seem to be what the Shitoh is saying. additionally, I have trouble understanding how her subsequent confirmation of his story shows she was, in fact, the cause of his corruption.
If you see your way clear, I would love to hear your comments.
B'vrochoh,
Dovid
Dovid,
Acharon Acharon Chaviv, I will answer your questions on my explanation of the Shita. Answering your first and third questions, I do not think that the woman is a defendant and her husband is a plaintiff. Rather, upon the husband's being approached by Beis Din, Gabai, or Gizbor, the woman voluntarily offers that he has no money with which to pay. Picture someone standing up and confronting someone else, while a third party echoes the negative message with, in our case, "It's all Mishubad to my Kesubah!" Isn't it common that this party is usually the heart and soul behind such a confrontation? As I pointed out, the Shita did not say she was asked, rather that she volunteered this information. This does indicate that she acted, as I stated above, in a way which reveals the person who is behind her husband's inaction.
As far as your second point, I said that this is not apparent from the words of the Shita, meaning that he does not say this explanation in the written text. I do believe that this is a more simple explanation of the text than your explanation. I think that your explanation of the Shita entails making up a story which can in no way be derived from the words of the Shita, which is a reason I still believe my understanding is correct. I appreciate your inquiring into the matter, and if you see any Seforim explaining the Shita's words I would like to be informed about it.
bi'Birkas Hatorah,
Yaakov Montrose