QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses the case of a man who makes a Neder to prohibit his wife from visiting her father.

The Mishnah says that when her father lives in the same city, she must remain married to her husband when his Neder prohibits her only from visiting her father for one month. When his Neder prohibits her from visiting her father for two months, he must divorce her and give her the Kesuvah.

When her father lives in a different city (and she usually goes to visit her father on Yom Tov), when her husband's Neder prohibits her from visiting her father for only one Regel, she must remain married to him. When his Neder prohibits her from visiting for three Regalim, he must divorce her and give her the Kesuvah.

The Gemara asks that the Mishnah contradicts itself. The Mishnah first says that when the husband's Neder prohibits her from visiting her father's home for one Regel, she must remain married to him, which implies that when the Neder prohibits her from visiting for two Regalim, she may demand a divorce. The Mishnah then says that when his Neder prohibits her from visiting her father's home for three Regalim, she may demand a divorce, which implies that when the Neder prohibits her for two Regalim, she must remain married!

Abaye answers that the wife of a Yisrael may demand a divorce if her husband, the Yisrael, prohibits her for just two Regalim, while the wife of a Kohen may demand a divorce only if her husband, the Kohen, prohibits her for three Regalim (this is in order for them to have time to appease each other, since they cannot remarry once they get divorced). Hence, when the Mishnah says that she must remain married to her husband when his Neder prohibits her from visiting her father's home for one Regel, which implies that when his Neder prohibits her for two Regalim she may demand a divorce, it refers to the wife of a Yisrael. When the Mishnah says that she may demand a divorce when her husband's Neder prohibits her from visiting her father's home for three Regalim, which implies that when his Neder prohibits her for two Regalim she must remain married, it refers to the wife of a Kohen.

Rabah bar Ula gives a different answer. He says that if the woman is Redufah (that is, she has an urge to go to her father's home), a Neder which prohibits her for just two Regalim is grounds for divorce. If she is not Redufah and does not long to go to her father's home, she must remain married unless her husband prohibits her from visiting her father's home for three Regalim.

According to both Abaye and Rabah bar Ula, why does the Mishnah allude to this additional Halachah (either the wife of a Kohen (Abaye), or one who is not Redufah (Rabah bar Ula)) only in the second case, where the father is not in town and the husband prohibits her from going to her father during the Regel? The Mishnah should have alluded to this Halachah in the first case as well, where the father is in the same town and the husband prohibits her from going to visit him! (RASHI MAHADURA KAMA -- a commentary attributed recently to the RIVAN -- quoted by the Shitah Mekubetzes, asks this question, but his answer there is not clear, as the Shitah Mekubetzes points out.)

(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi) gives two answers. The first answer, however, applies only to Abaye's explanation of the Mishnah and not to Rabah bar Ula's explanation.

The Shitah Mekubetzes explains that in the previous Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah states that when a woman's husband prohibits her from benefiting from him for two months, she may demand a divorce if her husband is a Yisrael. If her husband is a Kohen, she must stay married; she may demand a divorce only if her husband prohibits her for three months. It stands to reason that this difference between the wife of a Yisrael and the wife of a Kohen applies whenever a Neder prohibits her for two months, and therefore the Mishnah here does not have to repeat that difference in the Reisha.

The Halachah that a woman may demand a divorce when one's husband makes a Neder to prohibit her for two Regalim, however, is not discussed in any previous Mishnah. Therefore, the Mishnah here must teach that with regard to Regalim there is also a difference between the wife of a Yisrael and the wife of a Kohen.

According to Rabah bar Ula, who says that the Mishnah is not teaching anything about the difference between the wife of a Yisrael and the wife of a Kohen, but rather it is teaching the difference between a woman who is Redufah and one who is not Redufah, the question remains. Why does the Gemara not teach this distinction in the first case of the Mishnah?

Rashi explains that a Redufah is a woman who always wants to go to her father's home. If her father is in the same city, she wants to go to him every day. If her father is not in the same city, she longs to go only for the Regel, when the opportunity arises. If she is not Redufah, she is able to restrain herself from going to her father's home for two Regalim. When her father is in the same city and a Redufah could go every day, a Neder which prohibits her from going for thirty days is grounds for divorce. Although both a Redufah and a woman who is not Redufah are able to restrain themselves for thirty days, after thirty days have passed even a woman who is not Redufah may demand a divorce because she has been forced to restrain herself so many times. Therefore, the difference between a Redufah and one who is not Redufah does not apply in the case of the Reisha of the Mishnah. (M. Kornfeld)

(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES offers a second answer. After the Mishnah presents the second case (where the father is not in the same city) it says, "Sheloshah -- Yotzi," which literally means, "for three -- he must divorce her." The simple reading is that it means "for three Regalim" and it refers to the case mentioned immediately before. However, it could be that the words "Sheloshah -- Yotzi" refer not only to Sheloshah Regalim, but also to Sheloshah Chadashim -- three months, and it refers back to the first case in the Mishnah as well! The Mishnah means that there is a case in which the woman may demand a divorce only when the Neder prohibits her from going to her father's home, in the same city, for three months. Hence, when the Gemara explains the apparent contradiction in the Mishnah, it refers to the Reisha as well, and thus the difference between the wife of a Yisrael and the wife of a Kohen (Abaye) or the difference between a woman who is Redufah and one who is not Redufah (Rabah bar Ula) indeed is expressed in the Reisha as well.

(c) Perhaps a simple answer to this question may be suggested. Not only does the Seifa have contradictory connotations concerning a period of ambiguity (i.e. two Regalim), the Reisha also leaves a period of ambiguity -- from the end of the first month until the end of the second month (day 31 to 60)! The Mishnah says that if a man prohibits his wife from going to her father's home for one month, she must stay married to him, but if he prohibits her for two months, she may demand a divorce. What is the Halachah when he prohibits her for the number of days between one month and two months? In that period of time, too, if she is the wife of a Yisrael she may demand a divorce, and if she is the wife of a Kohen she may demand a divorce only if he prohibits her for a full two months. Likewise, according to Rabah bar Ula, if she is Redufah she may demand a divorce if he prohibits her for any amount of time more than one month, and if she is not Redufah she may demand a divorce only if he prohibits her for two full months.

Why, then, does the Gemara not ask its question on the first case of the Mishnah, since the Mishnah there also has contradictory connotations concerning the time between one month and two months? The answer is that the Mishnah does not state clearly that he must divorce her if he prohibits her for sixty days. Rather, it says "two months," which might mean that the Neder prohibits her into the second month (that is, he prohibits her only for thirty-one days), and then he must divorce her! If that is what the words "two months" mean in the Reisha, then there are no contradictory connotations in the Reisha! In contrast, the Seifa is a clear contradiction, and that is why the Gemara asks its question on the Seifa. The answers that Abaye and Rabah bar Ula give, though, might apply equally to the case in the Reisha.

This seems to be the intention of the Ritva, and it might also be the intention of Rashi in the Mahadura Kama. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan explains that the verse, "Then I was in His eyes as one who has found peace (k'Motz'es Shalom)" (Shir ha'Shirim 8:10), compares the Jewish people to a Kalah who was "found to be complete" ("k'Motz'es Shalom") by her new husband, and who runs to her father's home to boast of her praise. In what way was she "found to be complete" that she finds it necessary to boast about it to her parents?

ANSWER: RASHI MAHADURA KAMA (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) explains that the Gemara refers to Ta'anas Besulim, the husband's right to claim that he did not find his wife to be a Besulah. Throughout the wedding preparations, the Kalah is worried that after the wedding her Chasan will claim that she is a Be'ulah and not a Besulah. When the Chasan finds her to be complete, that is, he finds her to be a Besulah, then the Kalah rests assured that they will live happily together (TOSFOS 4a, DH Be'ilas Mitzvah).

This explains why she runs to tell her father of her praise. Her father, who worked for so many months to prepare for the marriage, is also worried that the Chasan will claim that his daughter is a Be'ulah and divorce her. The father eagerly waits to hear from the Kalah that she was found to be a Besulah.

Rashi (Mahadura Kama) mentions that this quality of "Motz'es Shalom" is the same quality referred to in the Gemara in Berachos (6a), which says that they used to ask a Chasan after he was married whether his wife is a "Matza" or a "Motza." It seems that they meant to ask whether he found her to be a Besulah ("Matza" -- "he found") or whether he found that her Besulim was already removed ("Motza" -- "removed [already]"). When the verse in Shir ha'Shirim says "k'Motz'es Shalom," it means that the husband found her to be a Besulah and therefore he is at peace with his wife.

Rebbi Yochanan here discusses a Kalah who is eager to return to her father's home to boast of her praise. When the Gemara earlier explains the Mishnah, it also discusses a woman who is Redufah -- eager to return to her father's home at the time of the Regel. Rashi there explains that the Mishnah's reference to a woman who is Redufah means any woman and not specifically a Kalah, a newly married woman. The Mishnah refers to a different type of Redufah -- a wife who is trying to get away from her husband and seeks refuge with her father. However, RABEINU CHANANEL (cited by Tosfos) explains that both the Gemara earlier and Rebbi Yochanan here refer to the same type of woman -- a Kalah who is Redufah and who wants to report to her parents about her husband's contentment with her. Consistent with the Rashi Mahadura Kama's explanation, the PISKEI RID (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) says that according to Rabeinu Chananel the Mishnah is discussing a Kalah who wants to run to tell her parents "that she was found to be a Besulah."