Resources for Kesubos 71
1. The גמרא brings a מחלוקת רב ושמואל about a case where the husband is מדיר his wife without saying an end date to the נדר. רב says that in that case the husband must divorce her and give her a כתובה immediately and שמואל says we give him thirty days to find a פּתח לנדרו. רבי עקיבא איגר here has an interesting question: what’s the purpose of limiting the husband’s ability to find a פּתח to his נדר to 30 days? We should give him three months! After all, even after he divorces her, she must wait three months to remarry because of the requirement of הבחנה. If so, he can just write the divorce immediately and not give it to her till three months have passed. The reason this would work is that שמואל happens to hold that the three months of הבחנה start from the date he writes the גט and not from the date he gives it. Therefore, he can write the גט now and give it in three months if he can't find a פּתח and she would be no worse off. He leaves it צריך עיון.
2. שמואל says the case of our משנה where there was a נדר not to eat a certain פּרי must talking about a case where the wife made a נדר and the husband was מקיים it. The גמרא in the מסקנא says that the reason the husband must divorce his wife immediately is because she thinks that if he was מקיים her נדר he must hate her, as opposed to where he makes the נדר himself where she thinks he was just angry and may calm down. The ש"ך in סימן רל"ה ס"ק י"ג says that the סברא of “he must hate me” is only where her נדר was to say that if she eats פּירות she will be אסורה בתשמיש. However, if she is not תולה it in תשמיש then she doesn’t think he hates her and they would only need to get divorced because she forbade herself in something intolerable like not eating פּירות. If so, if she made it אסור on herself to eat a certain פּרי without saying that it is only in effect while she is married then she would not need to get divorced at all since getting divorced would not allow her to eat the פּירות anyway. However, the ט"ז in ס"ק ח disagrees and says that if she makes a נדר and he is מקיים it then she thinks he must hate her (because she was the one who was angry and not him) and therefore she must get divorced right away since she doesn’t want to be married to someone who hates her.
3. There is a further מחלוקת related to the above case where he is מקיים her נדר and she thinks he must hate her: in הלכות נדרים, as long as the husband hears her נדר but doesn’t say anything where she makes the נדר then her נדר is מקויים. In our case, if the husband said nothing and her נדר is ממילא מקויים, does that make her think he must hate her or does she think he just forgot to say something? The תוספות רי"ד says that it applies whether the husband actually said something or whether he was just quite. This is also the simple משמעות of the גמרא which says that the husband was " שתיק לה". However, the ריטב"א says that our גמרא only applies if he actually verbalized his קיום of her נדר but if he was just silent then she won’t necessarily think he hates her. As to the גמרא saying " שתיק לה" he says it is לאו דוקה.
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