Resources for Kesubos daf 46
1. The גמרא says that the source of the איסור to be מוציא שם רע is from the פּסוק of לא תלך רכיל בעמיך. רב שלמה זלמן זצ"ל in מנחת שלמה, קמא סימן פּ"א has a fascinating question: we know that there are some people you are allowed to say לשון הרע about such as someone who isn’t עשה מעשה עמך. If so, what if the wife was not an עשה מעשה עמך? That would mean that the husband being מוציא שם רע about his wife was not a violation of לא תלך רכיל. If so, would there be any דין מוציא שם רע? Do we say since there is no לאו there is no קנס and מלקות? Or de we argue that it is just have a rule that any עונש needs an accompanying לאו, but once we have that לאו in general the לאו doesn’t need to apply in all cases for the עונש to be carried out (such as in our case where the husband certainly lied but didn’t technically violate לא תלך רכיל). He leaves it as a question.
2. The גמרא discusses whether a husband is liable for being a מוציא שם רע if he is a יבם speaking about his brother's marriage or if he married a lady, divorced her, then remarried her and claimed she was מזנה during the first marriage. In both cases the גמרא does not have a resolution and it remains a ספק. The רמב"ם in הלכות נערה פּרק ג׳ הל׳ ט has a very interesting פּסק. He says that in the above two cases the husband is 1) פּטור from paying the קנס, 2) does not get מלקות, and 3) may divorce his wife. The כסף משנה explains that the רמב"ם ‘s פּסק is based on the fact that these cases are a ספק. The משנה למלך asks the obvious question: we understand why there is no קנס and מלקות if it’s only a ספק. However, why is he allowed to divorce his wife? Shouldn’t we say ספק דאורייתא לחומרא and say since this is a ספק איסור דאורייתא he may not divorce her? Many אחרונים deal with this question. The אחיעזר in חלק ג׳ סימן פּ"ב אות ז brings the עונג יו"ט who answers the following: by every case of מוציא שם רע there should really be an איסור for the man to stay married because of the principle of שויא אנפשא חתיכה דאיסורא. After all, the husband just declared his wife to be אסורה to him! Nonetheless, the תורה explicitly told us in this case that if ב"ד decides she is innocent then he must marry her forever as it says לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו. However, that only makes sense if she for sure has a status of מוציא שם רע. However, since these cases are a ספק, we could not tell him to stay married מספק as he might be violating שויא אנפשא חתיכה דאיסורא. That is why the רמב"ם says he may divorce her. The אחיעזר doesn’t like this פּשט because if that were true then the רמב"ם should have said he must divorce her. The אחיעזר himself answers that the גמרא earlier told us that the woman has a right to be מוחל on " ולו תהיה לאשה". If so, this is not a standard ספק איסורא. It is more similar to a ספק ממונא where he can say המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה and does not need to stay married to her מספק. While this answer sounds very compelling (to me), רב ירוחם פישל פּערלא זצ"ל in his הגהות על הסמ"ג disagrees. He brings this possibility and rejects it because of a fundamental יסוד: the גמרא only said ולו תהיה לאשה is ניתן למחילה. However, that is by a case of אונס where you only have an עשה. By the case of מוציא שם רע you have a לאו as well of לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו and that is not ניתן למחילה.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos