Kesubos - Daf 49
- How we know a kallah handed over to the שלוחי הבעל never returns to her father’s reshus
The Gemara asks regarding a kallah that was given to over the husband’s shluchim, if she returns to her father’s house before reaching her husband, does she revert to her original state of being in his reshus? Rava said: This issue has already been decided by a Baraisa taught in the Beis Midrash of Rebbe Yishmael, which taught: "ונדר אלמנה וגרושה כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה" – But the neder of an almanah or gerushah, anything she prohibited upon herself, shall be binding upon her. What is this coming to teach, as it is obvious that once a woman is an almanah or divorced, that her nedarim are her own? Rather, it is to teach that if the girl was handed over to the שלוחי הבעל – the husband’s shluchim, ונתארמלה בדרך או נתגרשה – and she was widowed or divorced while on the way, כיון שיצאה שעה אחת מרשות האב שוב אינו יכול להפר – once a daughter leaves the father’s reshus for any length of time he can no longer annul her vows.
- Machlokes if there is any chiyuv or mitzvah to support one’s sons and daughters
The next Mishnah states: האב אינו חייב במזונות בתו – A father is not chayav to provide for his daughter’s sustenance while he is still alive. The Gemara says that this implies that he is chayav in his son’s sustenance, and even if with regard to his daughter: חובה הוא דליכא הא מצוה איכא – there is no chiyuv, but it is a mitzvah to provide for her. The Gemara asks who the Tanna of the Mishnah is, given that it cannot be any of the three Tannaim mentioned in the following Baraisa, for it was taught: מצוה לזון את הבנות קל וחומר לבנים דעסקי בתורה דברי רבי מאיר – Rebbe Meir says that it is mitzvah to provide for one’s daughters and kal v’chomer his sons who are engaged in learning Torah. Rebbe Yehudah says: It’s a mitzvah to sustain one’s sons and kal v’chomer one’s daughter משום זילותא – because of the disgrace they will face if they have to beg for food. Rebbe Yochanan ben Beroka says: חובה לזון את הבנות לאחר מיתת אביהן אבל בחיי אביהן אלו ואלו אינון ניזונין – It is a chiyuv to sustain one’s daughters after their father’s death, but during the father’s lifetime both sons and daughters are not sustained, even as a mitzvah. The Gemara will clarify that in fact the Mishnah can be according to any of the three Tannaim.
- Shaming fathers who do not support their children when they are minors
Rebbe Il’a said in the name of Reish Lakish, who said it in the name of Rebbe Yehudah bar Chanina: באושא התקינו שיהא אדם זן את בניו ואת בנותיו כשהן קטנים – In Usha, the Chochomim instituted that one should provide support for his sons and daughters when they are minors, which Rashi defines is until they grow two se’aros. It was asked whether the halachah goes according to what Rebbe Il’a taught, and the Gemara brings incidents to prove that the Amoraim only shamed but did not compel a father to support his young children. When fathers who were not supporting their children came before Rav Chisda, he said to them: Turn over a mortar in public and let the father or an announcer stand on top of it and announce: עורבא בעי בניה וההוא גברא לא בעי בניה – “Even a raven wants its children, and that man does not want his children. We see that Rav Chisda only shamed the father but did not compel him to support his children. The Gemara asks if the raven really wants its children, for the passuk states: Hashem gives food… "לבני ערב אשר יקראו" – to young ravens that call out. Rashi explains that we see that Hashem provides for them because ravens do not sustain their young. The Gemara answers that the passuk is referring to young ravens that are white, whereas the announcement is referring to older ravens when they turn black. Rashi explains that ravens hate their young when they are white but love them when they turn black.
