Kesubos - Daf 48
- Machlokes if a husband is required to provide flutes and a lamenter at this wife’s burial
The Mishnah on Daf 46b stated: The Tanna Kamma says a husband is chayav to provide for his wife’s burial, and Rebbe Yehudah says: אפילו עני שבישראל לא יפחות משני חלילין ומקוננת – Even the poorest Jewish man may not hire less than two flutes and a lamenting woman to lead the mourning at his wife’s burial. The Gemara here says that this implies that the Tanna Kamma holds that a husband does not have to provide these and asks that what is the Mishnah’s case. If the custom in her family is to have the flutes and the lamenting woman at a woman’s funeral, why does the Tanna Kamma say that he does not need to provide them? And if it is not her family’s custom, what is Rebbe Yehudah’s reason for requiring the husband to provide them? The Gemara answers that the machlokes is in a case where it is the husband’s custom to have the flute and lamenter at a woman’s funeral, but it is not her family’s custom. The Tanna Kamma holds, כי אמרינן עולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו הני מילי מחיים – when we say that a woman rises to her husband’s status but does not descend to it, this applies in her life, but not after her death. Rebbe Yehudah holds this principle applies even after her death. Rav Chisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: The halachah is like Rebbe Yehudah.
- The difference between a father going insane versus travelling regarding providing support
Rav Chisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: מי שנשתטה בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין את אשתו ובניו ובנותיו ודבר אחר – One who went insane, Beis Din goes down to his property and supports and maintains his wife and his sons and his daughters and also provides something else. Ravina asked Rav Ashi why this is different from a Baraisa which taught: מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות – One who goes overseas, and his wife goes to Beis Din and claims support, Beis Din goes down to his property to support and maintain her, but not his sons or his daughters nor something else. Rav Ashi responded: ולא שאני לך בין יוצא לדעת ליוצא שלא מדעת – Do you not distinguish between someone who leaves intentionally and one who leaves without daas? Rashi explains that the father who travelled overseas could have arranged support for his children before departing, indicates that he does not want to support them in his absence. Nonetheless, he must support his wife because that is one of the tannai kesubah, the conditions of the kesubah. But we may assume that the father who went crazy would have wanted to support his children.
- Machlokes what it means that the daughter is in husband’s reshus when given to his agents
The next Mishnah states: מסר האב לשלוחי הבעל הרי היא ברשות הבעל – Once the father has handed his daughter over to the husband’s agents, she is in her husband’s reshus. Rav said this means מסירתה לכל חוץ מתרומה – This delivery is effective in all respects except for permitting her to eat terumah, if her husband is a Kohen. Rashi explains that if the husband finds a physical defect after chuppah, the marriage could be retroactively revoked, and she will have unlawfully eaten terumah. But Rav Assi said she may eat terumah. Rashi explains he holds that the concern is that she will accidentally feed terumah to her siblings while in her house. Once she left her father’s house, there is no more concern. Shmuel said: לירושתה - that the delivery is only effective for her inheritance. If she dies on the way, her husband retains the dowry. Reish Lakish said for her kesubah, which Ravina explains means that if her chosson dies, then her kesubah from a second husband will only be one hundred zuz. The Gemara brings a Baraisa that refutes all the opinions except for Shmuel’s.
