Yevamos Daf 39 - Mitzvah B'Gadol L'Yaveim
Summary
- The shiur begins with dedications and proceeds from the bottom of Ketubot 38b, where Abaye rules that a father does not receive the kenas if the girl died, deriving לאבי הנערה ולא לאבי מתה, and Rava raises the question יש בגר בקבר או אין בגר בקבר with three versions that lead to an unresolved teiku. The sugya then rules that if *erusin* occurs after *ones*, the father still receives the *kenas* (unlike *nissuin*, which fully removes her from the father’s jurisdiction), presents the Mishnah’s payments for *mofateh* and *ones*, and defines *tza’ar* as צער של פיסוק רגליים, explaining why there is no *tza’ar* payment for a *mofutah*. The Gemara establishes that both the girl and her father can refuse the marriage in both *ones* and *mofateh*, with Abaye and Rava offering different derivations and rebuttals, and concludes with the effect on the *ketubah*, a dispute whether she has a *ketubat maneh*, and a practical ruling from the Rema that, post-Takkanat Rabbeinu Gershom, couples may remain together without a *ketubah* in exigent cases.
- The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Landerer in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, and by Seymour Gertz in memory of his father רב אריה לייב בן רב אליעזר יצחק עליו השלום whose יארצייט is today; הנפש שתהא עליה. The learning resumes five lines from the end of Ketubot 38b with Abaye and proceeds into Rava’s question.
- Abaye rules that if a man is *ones* a *na’arah* and she dies before collection, the rapist is exempt from paying the *kenas* to the father, as it says לאבי הנערה ולא לאבי מתה. The Gemara states that what was obvious to Abaye is a doubt for Rava, who asks יש בגר בקבר או אין בגר בקבר in light of the rule that if she becomes a *bogeret* before *ha’amadah badin*, the money goes to her rather than to her father.
- The second version asks whether יש בגר בקבר would remove the father’s right to the *kenas* so that no one collects (since she, now a *bogeret*, would have been the recipient, but she is deceased), or whether אין בגר בקבר keeps the father’s claim intact forever. Mar bar Rav Ashi’s third version asks מיתה עושה בגרות או אין עושה בגרות, i.e., whether death itself effects *bogrut* immediately and thus uproots the father’s entitlement, and the Gemara leaves it as תיקו.
- Abaye rules that if *erusin* occurs after *ones* but before *ha’amadah badin*, the father still receives the *kenas*, since the verse states ונתן האיש אשר שכב עמה לאבי הנערה חמשים כסף without excluding an *arusah*. Rava challenges by analogy to *nissuin*, where everyone agrees the father no longer receives the *kenas*, despite the verse not explicitly excluding a *nesu’ah*, and the Gemara answers that *nissuin* completely removes her from the father’s jurisdiction as does *bogrut*, whereas *erusin* does not.
- # Mishnah: Payments for Mofateh and Ones, Timing, and “Shoteh Be’atzitzo”
- The Mishnah states that an *ones* pays immediately, as in ונתן האיש השכב עמה לאבי הנערה חמשים כסף before ולו תהיה לאשה, while a *mofateh* pays *kenas* לכשלא יכנוס, but pays *boshet* and *pegam* immediately. The Mishnah teaches האונס שותה בעציצו, compelling him to remain married even if she is חיגרת, סומא, or מוכת שחין, but if there is דבר ערוה or she is שאינה ראויה לבוא בישראל, אינו רשאי לקיימה, as inferred from ולו תהיה לאשה, אשה הראויה לו.
- Abuha d’Shmuel defines the *tza’ar* as צער שחבטה על גבי קרקע, which Rav Zeira challenges, and a baraita citing Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon states אונס אינו משלם את הצער מפני שסופה להצטער תחת בעלה; the Chachamim respond אינו דומה נבעלת באונס לנבעלת ברצון. This shows the *tza’ar* in question is not impact trauma, and Rav Nachman bar Abahu defines it as צער של פיסוק רגליים, supported by the verse ותפסקי את רגליך לכל עובר.
- # Who May Refuse the Marriage in Ones and Mofateh
- Abaye attributes the father’s right in *ones* to שלא יהא חוטא נשכר, because the father certainly could refuse the match absent the sin and the sinner should not gain rights from wrongdoing. Rava derives the father’s right by kal vachomer from *mofateh*, where only the father’s will was violated yet both she and her father can object; thus in *ones*, where both her will and the father’s will were violated, all the more so they can object. Rava rejects Abaye because, given that the rapist pays *kenas*, he is not a חוטא נשכר overall; Abaye rejects Rava because the kal vachomer is subject to פירכא, as the *mofateh* can himself refuse to marry while the *ones* cannot, making the cases non-parallel.
- A baraita states that although an *ones* pays immediately, the clause כשיוציא הוא אין לה עליו כלום is read as כשתצא היא אין לה עליו כלום, since he may not divorce her due to לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו. The baraita continues that if he dies thereafter, יצא כסף קנסה בכתובתה, while Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda says יש לה כתובה מנה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions