Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kesuvos, 68

68b

QUESTION: Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar argue regarding when a Yesomah, a girl whose father died, is no longer eligible to receive from her father's estate her Nedunya -- the "Isur Nechasim," or "Parnasah," which is the dowry given to her from one-tenth of her father's estate (see Chart #11). According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, a Na'arah who gets married, and a Bogeres even before she gets married, are not entitled to receive the "Isur Nechasim."

RASHI (DH Af Ivdu) writes (as the Shitah Mekubetzes explicates) that a Na'arah who is married and a Bogeres do not receive their "Isur Nechasim" for two different reasons. The reason why the Bogeres does not receive it is because the Rabanan did not institute that a Bogeres receive "Isur Nechasim" since she is able to take care of herself; she is no longer dependent upon the estate and is not entitled to any part of it. In contrast, a Na'arah who is married *is* entitled to part of the estate, but since she became married without first claiming her "Isur Nechasim," she has shown that she willfully forfeited her entitlement to the "Isur Nechasim."

Rashi's explanation raises a number of questions. How does Rashi know that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's ruling regarding a Na'arah who is married and a Bogeres stem from two different lines of reasoning? Rashi should have explained simply that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that a Na'arah who gets married no longer has anything to do with her father's estate, just like a Bogeres!

In addition, it is clear from the Gemara's conclusion that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar *must* hold that a Na'arah who gets married is removed from her father's estate, like a Bogeres, and that she does not receive the "Isur Nechasim" even if she protests ("Mochah") its revocation. This is clear from the Gemara's statement that even Rebbi agrees that a Na'arah who gets married loses her "Isur Nechasim" if she does not protest, and that the Beraisa in which Rebbi argues with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is discussing a Na'arah who *does* protest. Obviously, then, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar who argues with Rebbi holds that even if the Na'arah does protest, she does *not* receive the "Isur Nechasim" (like RABEINU YONAH points out, as quoted by the Shitah Mekubetzes)!

ANSWER: Rashi finds it necessary to explain the Gemara's original understanding of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the way he did because the Gemara attempts to attribute the statement of the Mishnah (68a) to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (see Rashi DH Vitrah). The Mishnah does not say that a Na'arah who gets married has no entitlement to the "Isur Nechasim." It only says that a Na'arah who gets married loses the "Isur Nechasim" if she does not protest and she accepts less than a tenth of the estate at the time of her wedding. The Gemara must have understood that the Na'arah who gets married loses the rights to the "Isur Nechasim" according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar only because she did not protest and she willingly forfeited it (and not because she has no entitlement to it at all).

Later, the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah is expressing Rebbi's opinion, and not the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. If so, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar must be of the opinion that a Na'arah who is married never gets Isur Nechasim, even if she does protest at the time.

QUESTION: The Gemara explains that our Mishnah (68a) -- which implies that a Gedolah who gets married and does not protest when her brothers do not give her the "Isur Nechasim" loses her entitlement to the "Isur Nechasim" -- is following the opinion of Rebbi. The Gemara proves that this is indeed Rebbi's opinion from a Beraisa. In the Beraisa, Rebbi says that a girl receives the "Isur Nechasim" upon her marriage only if she is being supported by her brothers. If they are not providing her with support, then she does not receive the "Isur Nechasim. How can Rebbi say that she loses the "Isur Nechasim" when she is not being supported, if he says that a Bogeres who is not being supported *does* receive the "Isur Nechasim?" It must be that the statement in which Rebbi connects the rights to receive "Isur Nechasim" to Mezonos (being supported), is discussing a Bogeres who did not protest when she was not given the "Isur Nechasim." If she protests, however, then she receives the "Isur Nechasim."

Rashi explains that when Rebbi says in the Beraisa that a girl who is being supported by her brothers receives the "Isur Nechasim" (even when she does not protest), he is referring to a Ketanah *or a Na'arah*.

How can Rashi write that the Beraisa is referring to a Na'arah and that a Na'arah gets the "Isur Nechasim" even if she does not protest? The Mishnah implies that a Na'arah (i.e. any Gedolah) *loses* the "Isur Nechasim" when she does not protest! (MAHARSHA, MAHARAM)

ANSWER: The MAHARSHA and MAHARAM answer that our Mishnah -- which implies that a Na'arah loses the "Isur Nechasim" when she does not protest -- is discussing a Na'arah who has become married (which parallels the Mishnah's case of a Ketanah that became married). The Beraisa, on the other hand, which says that as long as she is receiving Mezonos she does not have to protest in order to receive the "Isur Nechasim," is discussing a Na'arah who has not yet become married. That is why she does not have to protest in order to receive the "Isur Nechasim."

The Maharsha points out that Rashi makes this clear (in DH Nizones) by saying that Rebbi in the Beraisa is discussing a Na'arah "who is *coming* to get married," in contrast to a Na'arah who is already married.