Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Daf Yomi Ketubot daf 80: Two Maidservant, One Assigned. What Home Comfort Is There?

Perhaps something, perhaps nothing.

From Ketubot daf 80, taking from my Rif translation:
איבעיא להו בעל שמכר קרקע לפירות מהו
מי אמרינן מאי דקני אקני ליה או דילמא כי תקינו רבנן משום רווח ביתא אבל לזבוני לא
יהודה בר מרימר משמיה דרבא אמר מה שעשה עשוי
רב פפי משמיה דרבא אמר לא עשה כלום
א"ר פפא הא דיהודה בר מרימר לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר
דההיא אתתא דעיילא ליה לגברא תרתי אמהתא אזל גברא נסב אתתא אחריתי עייל לה חדא מנייהו אתיא לקמיה דרבא צווחא ולא אשגח בה מאן דחזא סבר מה שעשה עשוי ולא היא משום רווח ביתא הוא והא קרווח דאיכא אחריתי
והלכתא בעל שמכר קרקע לפירות לא עשה כלום
מאי טעמא אביי אמר חיישינן שמא תכסיף
רבא אמר משום רווח ביתא
מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו ארעא דמקרבא למתא אי נמי בעל אריס הוא אי נמי זוזי וקעביד בהו עסקא
והלכתא כרבא
It was a question to them: A husband who sold the land in terms of rights to the fruits, what is the law? Do we say that what was acquired he can transfer ownership of? Or perhaps, the Sages enacted because of {Ketubot 80b} providing for the comfort of his home, but to sell, no?
Yehuda bar Meremar, citing Rava, said: What was done was done.
Rav Papi citing Rava said: He did not do anything {that had an effect}.
Rav Pappa said: This of Yehuda bar Meremar was not stated explicitly, but rather was inferred.
For there was a woman who brought in two her husband {in marriage} with her two maidservants. The husband went and married another woman {in addition}, and he assigned to her one of them {the maidservants}. She came before Rava, crying, and he paid her no heed. One who saw this thought that what was done was done, but it was not so. Rather, it was for the purpose of the comfort of the house, and there is still this comfort for the house, for there is another one.
And the halacha is that a husband who sold land in terms of fruit rights did not accomplish anything. What is the reason?
Abaye said: We worry lest it {the land} deteriorate {because of over-farming}.
Rava said: Because of comfort of the house.
What is the practical distinction between them?
This is the practical distintion? Land which is close to the town {where one can see how the land is treated}. Alternatively, where the husband is a tenant farmer {for the person to whom the fruit rights were sold}. Alternatively, where the husband receives money and uses it to engage in trade {such that there is comfort for the house, so Rava would permit}.
And the halacha is like Rava.
Of interest here is the reason given for the comfort of the house, which is present. Rif has the words דאיכא אחריתי in the phrase והא קרווח דאיכא אחריתי. Thus, the reason that this was allowed to the husband was that there was some aspect of comfort to the house, since the other maidservant was still present. These words, דאיכא אחריתי, are not present in our gemara. Thus, Rashi explains that the comfort to the house is that this maidservant assigned to the other, new, woman, is still providing household duties {for the household in general, perhaps by servant this new wife}. Of course, once these words are inserted, דאיכא אחריתי, such explanation is impossible.

Is this a girological variant, or is the Rif merely inserting in his own explanation? Often, he inserts his own explanations with an extra word פירוש, but not always does he make this clear. And this could be read separately, or as part of the text.

Rosh clearly takes this text as the Rif's commentary, and then argues on it, noting that the implication would be that he could then sell one of the maidservants, since there is still comfort to the house coming from the other maidservant.


No comments:


Blog Widget by LinkWithin