(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Kesuvos 2

KESUVOS 2 & 3 - Generously dedicated by Reb A. Wolfson, a sincere Ohev Torah and Mokir Torah and himself an example of Torah u'Gedulah b'Makom Echad.


QUESTION: Rav Yosef quotes Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel, who teaches that the reason one must get married on Wednesday and not on Sunday is because of the enactment of "Shakdu." The Rabanan were concerned for the honor of Jewish women and they enacted that a man must get married on Wednesday, in order that he spend three days (Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday) preparing a respectable Se'udah for the wedding. Since one is required to get married on Wednesday because of the enactment of "Shakdu," if an engaged couple's twelve-month period of Erusin ends on a Sunday, the man is not obligated to pay for his bride's support ("Mezonos"), since he can justifiably claim that he is not required to marry her until Wednesday due to the Takanah d'Rabanan.

It seems from the wording of the statement of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel that our Mishnah (which states that the reason for delaying the wedding until Wednesday is in order to provide the opportunity to go to Beis Din on Thursday if the man has a Ta'anas Besulim) does not provide sufficient reason for why the husband is justified in not paying the wife when the twelve-month period of Erusin ends on a Sunday, and he delays marrying until Wednesday. It is only the additional reason of "Shakdu" which the Beraisa introduces that justifies not paying the wife "Mezonos" in such a situation.

Why is this the only reason for not having to pay support for the woman? Why do we need the reason of "Shakdu" in order to exempt him from Mezonos? Our Mishnah teaches that there is a Takanah d'Rabanan that one must get married on Wednesday; that Takanah should be sufficient reason to exempt him from paying Mezonos!


(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Tinasei), as explained by the SHITAH MEKUBETZES and the MAHARSHA, explains that there is another factor which requires that a person get married on Wednesday. The Gemara (5a) tells us that one should get married on Wednesday in order to perform the Be'ilas Mitzvah at the beginning of Thursday (Wednesday night), because it was on the original Thursday that Hashem gave a Berachah to the fish to multiply. Therefore, it is a good omen if one performs the Be'ilas Mitzvah on Thursday (Wednesday night).

Had we not learned in a Beraisa the reason of "Shakdu" for marrying on Wednesday, we might have thought that the Mishnah instructs that one should get married on Wednesday (and not Sunday) simply because of the Berachah that Hashem gave to the fish. If that would be the reason to get married on Wednesday (as opposed to Sunday), though, then it would not suffice to exempt the husband from paying Mezonos to his wife when the twelve-month period of Erusin ends on Sunday. The good omen of the Berachah of the fish does not *obligate* one to get married on Wednesday. It is merely recommended that he do so, as good advice. Since the Berachah of the fish does not obligate him to get married on Wednesday, he cannot claim that he is unable to get married on Sunday, and thus he would have to pay Mezonos to his wife. Furthermore, the reason of Berachah does not exempt him from paying Mezonos because it benefits *him* and not her, since *he* is the one who is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of "Piryah v'Rivyah." Therefore he cannot exempt himself from paying Mezonos until Wednesday comes, because his delay until Wednesday is for his benefit and not hers.

However, now that the reason for getting married on Wednesday is "Shakdu," it is an established enactment of the Rabanan that one is *obligated* to get married on Wednesday and is not permitted to get married on any other day. Furthermore, the enactment of "Shakdu" is for *her* benefit and not for his benefit, and therefore he can claim that he cannot marry her until Wednesday and exempt himself from paying Mezonos until then.

(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH (quoting his Rebbi, the MAHARAM) suggests a different explanation for the Gemara, according to which our question is also answered differently.

From the words of the Mishnah it is not clear that a person must get *married* on Wednesday, Perhaps the Mishnah means that one must perform the Be'ilas Mitzvah on Wednesday night, but he may get married on any day of the week as long as he waits to do the Be'ilas Mitzvah until Wednesday night (either because of the Berachah to fish, or because of Ta'anas Besulim). Even though the Mishnah says that "a Besulah must *get married* on Wednesday," perhaps the Mishnah means that the Be'ilah must be done on Wednesday night and it is merely expressing this in a nicer way. Alternatively, the Mishnah is saying that since the Be'ilas Mitzvah cannot be done until Wednesday night, it is advisable to get married then and not earlier.

Accordingly, if the twelve-month period ends on a Sunday, then she should be able to insist on getting married then (and just waiting until Wednesday night for the Be'ilah), and if he does not agree to get married he must pay her the Mezonos. Now, however, that the Beraisa teaches that the Rabanan instituted getting married on Wednesday because of "Shakdu," it is clear that the Mishnah is not just discussing the Be'ilas Mitzvah, but it is discussing the date of the actual marriage. The Rabanan instituted that the *marriage* itself must be on Wednesday (so that he can prepare the wedding banquet starting three days in advance). Since the enactment was that he get *married* Wednesday, he may exempt himself from paying Mezonos, if the twelve month period ends on a Sunday, because the Rabanan did not permit him to get married until Wednesday.


QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Gitin and tells us that the Reisha of the Mishnah is teaching that a man may not divorce his wife after his death -- "Ein Get l'Achar Misah." RASHI (DH Meis Hu) explains that the reason is because "dead people cannot divorce" -- "Ein ha'Mesim Megarshim." Why does the Mishnah need to teach that a man cannot divorce his wife after his death? After the man dies, there is no longer any Kidushin; he is not married anymore -- of course the Get cannot take effect! Furthermore, why does Rashi say that the Mishnah teaches that "dead people cannot give divorces." The reason the Get does not take effect is because the woman is no longer married when her husband dies!

In fact, in Gitin (9b), where the Gemara teaches that a Shtar Shichrur (a document of release for an Eved) and a Shtar Mecher (a document of sale) cannot take effect after the death of the owner, RASHI (DH Lo Yitnu and DH v'Ein Shtar) explains that the reason is because when the owner dies, the property or the Eved no longer belongs to him, and thus he has no right to set the Eved free or to sell the property! Why, then, does Rashi in our Sugya not give the same explanation -- that after a man has died, the woman is no longer his wife to divorce? (See KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN 188:2.)

ANSWER: The Gemara is discussing a case where the husband dies with no children, and the woman falls to Yibum after her husband dies. If the Get is valid, it exempts her from Yibum (like Rashi explains in DH Eino Get). The Zikah of Yibum is considered, in a sense, to be like a continuation of the bond of marriage, since the Zikah to the Yavam only comes as a result of the marriage of the woman to his brother who died. (See TOSFOS Kidushin 4b, DH Mah l'Yevamah, in the name of Rebbi Elazar mi'Shazna.)

Therefore, we might have thought that since an element of the original Kidushin remains, the Get can still be effective in divorcing one's wife even after one has died! That is why the Mishnah must teach that "Ein Get l'Achar Misah" -- even though a part of the Kidushin does remain after the husband's death in a situation of Yibum, nevertheless "Ein ha'Mesim Megarshim" as Rashi explains.

(This also explains why Rashi, DH Eino Get, writes that the practical consequence of the Get not being valid is that the wife falls to Yibum. At the end of this Daf, Rashi mentions a different consequence -- that the woman does not become Pesulah l'Kehunah if the Get is not a valid Get. Why does Rashi not mention that consequence here? The answer is that Rashi wants to point out that the case of the Mishnah *must* be a case where the woman falls to Yibum, because otherwise there is no Chidush in teaching us that Ein Get l'Achar Misah.)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,