Resources for Kesubos 69
1. The משנה says in the name of רבי מאירthat if someone gives instructions to a third party to take his money and purchase a field for his daughter when she gets married and the daughter wants it given to her ארוס directly, we don’t listen to her, even if she is a גדולה. The גמרא explains that this is because of the concept of מצוה לקיים דברי המת. What is unclear is what exactly is the nature of this מצוה? Is it just a מצוה or is it something that חז"ל made into a חושן משפּט reality? For example, רבי יוסי disagrees with ר"מ since she has a right to sell the property once the שליש buys it anyway so why not do what she asks with the money to start with. What is רבי מאיר’s response to that? תוספות in ד"ה וכי says that ר"מ holds that she actually can’t sell it even if she tried. תוספות הרא"ש explains that she can’t sell it because of מצוה לקיים דברי המת. The מהר"ם שי"ף explains that it’s משמע from תוספות that she doesn’t own it to sell it. Meaning מצוה לקיים דברי המת is not just a מצוה but a חושן משפּט imperative. The מחנה אפרים in הלכות זכיה סימן כ"ט discusses this question and brings the ר"ן in גיטין on דף ה בדפּי הרי"ף ד"ה גמ׳ מתני בשכיב מרע who says that it is not a קנין but rather works as a מצוה only. Therefore, even though we are כופין על המצוות and would enforce the father’s wishes, he is still not קונה automatically. The נפקא מינא would be if the יתומים are קטנים in which case we would not give it to the daughter since they don’t have to do מצוות. In a possibly related מחלוקת, תוספות on דף ע׳ in ד"ה הא קיימא asks what the difference is between מתנת שכיב מרע and מצוה לקיים דברי המת? Or to put it another way, when would you ever need the concept of מתנת שכיב מרע if you always have מצוה לקיים דברי המת? תוספות answers in the name of ר"ת that מצוה לקיים דברי המת only works if the giver handed it to the third party before he died (so he showed some גמירת דעת). However, if he never gave it to anyone then we wouldn’t enforce his wishes. The ר"ן mentioned above says that מצוה לקיים דברי המת only applies to a case where the giver was מצווה (commanded) something to be done by the יורשים¸but if he just goes about trying to do it himself then we don’t say מצוה לקיים דברי המת. Perhaps תוספות’s explanation fits better לשיטתו that it’s בגדר קנין and the ר"ן works better with concept of מצוה לקיים. Interestingly, both ר"ת and the ר"ן agree that מצוה לקיים דברי המת only applies to someone with יורשים as their שליטה over their money continues after death via their יורשים, but if they have no יורשים such as in the case of a גר¸there is no concept of מצוה לקיים דברי המת.
2. רבי יוסי said that there is no point in following the father's wishes in our case since the daughter can just turn around and sell the property anyway. The ר"ן here on דף ל"א בדפּי הריף ד"ה אמר asks how she is allowed to sell it when there is a תקנה that a son less than 20 is not allowed to sell his father's land and the משמעות of the משנה is רבי יוסי was even talking about a girl above 12 but under 20? He answers in the name of the רשב"א that the תקנה only applies to a son who is שכיח בירושה but not to a daughter. רבי עקיבא איגר in משניות asks that he doesn’t understand the question: even if she can’t sell the land due to the תקנה she can certainly give it as a מתנה. If so, רבי יוסי would still be right—she can just give it to her husband as a gift and then he will go buy the land! The חזון אי"ש answers that people don’t just give money away, even to their husbands, so it wouldn’t be a valid טענה.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos