{Ketubot 83a}
BEGIN PEREK NINE
Mishna:הכותב לאשתו דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך הרי זה אוכל פירות בחייה ואם מתה יורשה
אם כן למה כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך שאם מכרה ונתנה קיים
כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן הרי זה אינו אוכל פירות בחייה ואם מתה יורשה
רבי יהודה אומר לעולם הוא אוכל פירות ופירי פירותיהן עד שיכתוב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן ובפירי פירותיהן עד עולם
כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן ובפירי פירותיהן [עד עולם] בחייך ובמותיך אינו אוכל פירות בחייה ואם מתה אינו יורשה
רשב"ג אומר אם מתה יירשנה מפני שהתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה וכל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטלIf one wrote to his wife, "I have no right or claim to your assets," behold he eats the fruits in her lifetime, and if she dies, he inherits her.
If so, why did he write to her ""I have no right of claim to your assets?" That is she sold or gave, it is valid.
If he wrote to her, "I have no right or claim to your assets or their fruits," behold he does not eat the fruits, and if she dies, he inherits her.
Rabbi Yehuda says: He always eats the fruits, and the fruits of the their fruits, until he writes to her ""I have no right or claim to your assets or their fruits or the fruits of their fruits ad infinitum."
If he wrote to her, "I have no right or claim to your assets or their fruits or the fruits of their fruits [ad infinitum] in your life and in your death," he does not eat fruits in her lifetime and if she dies, he does not inherit her.
R' Shimon ben Gamliel says: If she dies he inherits her, for he has attempted to impose a stipulation upon what was written in the Torah, and whoever imposes a stipulation on what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is nullified.
Of interest are the words [עד עולם] inserted in brackets here. One would need to check manuscripts of Rif to see what was and what was not present. Compare with the Mishna in our gemara, and with the Mishna in Yerushalmi. You will discover that the girsa is exactly as we have in Rif, and without the words in brackets. So does [עד עולם] in fact belong?
Relevant to this is Tosafot on the daf (83a), who makes a girsological point. In the dibbur hamatchil, he has כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן בחייך ובמותיך. This clearly does not have the words ובפירי פירותיהן. Yet as he notes, most sefarim do in fact have ובפירי פירותיהן there. Thus, the Tanna of the Mishna is stating stam in accordance with the wording of Rabbi Yehuda. But then, he notes, the words עד עולם are not present, and there is a discussion in the gemara (on 83b) whether עד עולם is really essential. And the fact that it is missing in this next part of the Mishna can be taken as proof that this is not essential. Yet the gemara does not bring this as proof. Why not? Tosafot answers that perhaps the Tanna just included enough words to establish a plain Mishna like Rabbi Yehuda, but did not want to overextend the verbiage, and so left it out, but of course he would write this as well.
Of course, one could also say that Tosafot's question is valid, and therefore we should establish like this minority girsa.
At this point, with the evidence we presently have before us, and not looking at manuscripts or conducting further analysis of the gemara, I think this issue is not really resolvable. Yet, I have a few observations which might be valid.
1. This discussion of whether עד עולם is essential is conducted by the setama digmara, which is post-Talmudic. Thus, we could answer like Tosafot, or else we could answer that the version of the Mishna which stood before the stamaim {Savora or Gaon} was this minority girsa. But that does not mean that the original, correct girsa of the Mishna is like that.
2. Perhaps this variation between Rabbi Yehuda's statement and the statement based on him was the impetus for the gemara's discussion of whether עד עולם or ובפירי פירותיהן was the essential component. Obviously, there is the issue that they seem to carry the same implication, but the variation could also be the spark.
3. We can understand how a girsa which has עד עולם could come about. That is, it seems like the Tanna is establishing a stam Mishna like Rabbi Yehuda. But then the language is off. So we should reinsert the language. And furthermore, Tosafot's question from the fact that the gemara does not resolve from the absence of עד עולם could also cause עד עולם to be inserted in the Mishna. Thus, under lectio difficilior, I would doubt that עד עולם really belongs.
4. I am not entirely convinced that the Tanna is really establishing plainly like Rabbi Yehuda. This is, after all, a further "gate" in the Mishna, dealing with the additional issue of uprooting his inheriting of her. For this, the phrase might be required, but not for the simpler issue of eating fruits and fruit of fruits.
5. Note that Tosefta Ketubot 9:3 does not actually have Rabbi Yehuda giving over the proper text to write to dismiss fruits and fruits of fruits.
Relevant to this is Tosafot on the daf (83a), who makes a girsological point. In the dibbur hamatchil, he has כתב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך ובפירותיהן בחייך ובמותיך. This clearly does not have the words ובפירי פירותיהן. Yet as he notes, most sefarim do in fact have ובפירי פירותיהן there. Thus, the Tanna of the Mishna is stating stam in accordance with the wording of Rabbi Yehuda. But then, he notes, the words עד עולם are not present, and there is a discussion in the gemara (on 83b) whether עד עולם is really essential. And the fact that it is missing in this next part of the Mishna can be taken as proof that this is not essential. Yet the gemara does not bring this as proof. Why not? Tosafot answers that perhaps the Tanna just included enough words to establish a plain Mishna like Rabbi Yehuda, but did not want to overextend the verbiage, and so left it out, but of course he would write this as well.Of course, one could also say that Tosafot's question is valid, and therefore we should establish like this minority girsa.
At this point, with the evidence we presently have before us, and not looking at manuscripts or conducting further analysis of the gemara, I think this issue is not really resolvable. Yet, I have a few observations which might be valid.
1. This discussion of whether עד עולם is essential is conducted by the setama digmara, which is post-Talmudic. Thus, we could answer like Tosafot, or else we could answer that the version of the Mishna which stood before the stamaim {Savora or Gaon} was this minority girsa. But that does not mean that the original, correct girsa of the Mishna is like that.
2. Perhaps this variation between Rabbi Yehuda's statement and the statement based on him was the impetus for the gemara's discussion of whether עד עולם or ובפירי פירותיהן was the essential component. Obviously, there is the issue that they seem to carry the same implication, but the variation could also be the spark.
3. We can understand how a girsa which has עד עולם could come about. That is, it seems like the Tanna is establishing a stam Mishna like Rabbi Yehuda. But then the language is off. So we should reinsert the language. And furthermore, Tosafot's question from the fact that the gemara does not resolve from the absence of עד עולם could also cause עד עולם to be inserted in the Mishna. Thus, under lectio difficilior, I would doubt that עד עולם really belongs.
4. I am not entirely convinced that the Tanna is really establishing plainly like Rabbi Yehuda. This is, after all, a further "gate" in the Mishna, dealing with the additional issue of uprooting his inheriting of her. For this, the phrase might be required, but not for the simpler issue of eating fruits and fruit of fruits.
5. Note that Tosefta Ketubot 9:3 does not actually have Rabbi Yehuda giving over the proper text to write to dismiss fruits and fruits of fruits.
ט,ג ר' יהודה אומר לעולם הוא אוכל פירי פירות וילקח בהן קרקע והוא אוכל פירות רשב"ג ור' ישמעאל בן ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומרים אם מתה יירשנה שהתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה וכל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל.
Indeed, it looks a bit like expansion of this juxtaposition of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel to establish the two disputes as in the Mishna.
But still, tzarich iyyun.
Update: Note that Rosh says basically the same as Tosafot. He notes the prevalent girsa and that one should be gores like it, that this proves the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda, notes the issue of the missing עד עולם, and gives two suggestions -- the Tanna is writing in shorthand, or perhaps "in life and after death" carries the same implication as עד עולם -- something I find difficult, because that is a further bava in the Mishna, which adds this additional aspect in terms of inheritance.
Also, others prove that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda from the fact that the gemara brings down a brayta which gives a definition of peiri perot, in this context.
But still, tzarich iyyun.
Update: Note that Rosh says basically the same as Tosafot. He notes the prevalent girsa and that one should be gores like it, that this proves the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda, notes the issue of the missing עד עולם, and gives two suggestions -- the Tanna is writing in shorthand, or perhaps "in life and after death" carries the same implication as עד עולם -- something I find difficult, because that is a further bava in the Mishna, which adds this additional aspect in terms of inheritance.
Also, others prove that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda from the fact that the gemara brings down a brayta which gives a definition of peiri perot, in this context.
No comments:
Post a Comment