Skip to main content

Shiur Supplement - Daf 96a-b

Rav Zev Jacobson
21.09.2014

DAF 96a

A. Bai Rami bar Chama ba'al be-nikhsei ishto... [Bottom line of the amud] As mentioned in last week's shiur, the profits (peirot) accrued from a married woman's assets (keren) legally belong to her husband. (In this context, "peirot" refer not only to monetary returns on an investment, but also to any benefits or uses that can be reaped from the "keren". For example, he has sole riding privileges with regards to her horse etc.) Nonetheless, she retains full ownership of these assets.

 

            This seems analogous to a lender-borrower relationship where the pikadon (keren) remains in the ownership of the lender while it is being used by the sho'el/ sokher for his OWN benefit (peirot). Rami bar Chama assumes, therefore, that the halakhic relationship between husband and wife, with regards to HER assets is one of lender-borrower. He questions, however, whether the husband is to be considered a sho'el or a sokher.

 

            It is simple to see why he should be considered a sho'el as he does not pay her anything in return for use of her assets. How is it possible, though, to view the husband as a sokher, who must pay in order to benefit from the pikadon? A woman receives certain benefits as a result of being married and, according to the gemara (Ketubot 47b), a man is entitled to the peirot as compensation for his obligation to redeem his wife should she ever be taken captive. It is, therefore, possible to view the relationship as one of give-and-take, where the woman receives an assurance that she will not be left to languish in her captor's hands and, in return, gives the man exclusive rights over her assets.

 

DAF 96b

B Amar Rava le-fum churpa shebeshta... sekhirut be-ba'alim hi [lines 1-4] Rava responds to Rami bar Chama's inquiry with a touch of cynicism pointing out that it is irrelevant whether the husband is considered a sho'el or a sokher. In either case he is absolved from all liability for the wife's assets as the din of "be-ba'alim" is applied. This is because a woman is contractually bound to perform certain household chores for her husband, such as cooking, baking etc. (see Ketubot 59b).

 

C. Ela ki mibaye lei... o sokher havi [lines 3-11] From this point on, the gemara re-interprets Rami bar Chama's question. According to the first emendation, Rami bar Chama refers to a case where the husband borrows an object from a woman and only AFTERWARDS marries her. This possibility is rejected by the gemara and a second version is suggested whereby Rami bar Chama refers to the following scenario: A woman hires a cow from someone and and subsequently marries a third party. This too is rejected by Rava.

 

D. Bai Rami bar Chama ba'al be-nikhsei ishto mi ma'al [lines 23-24] Background: Anything that has been dedicated to the Sanctuary is termed "hekdesh" and may not be used for non-Sanctuary purposes. Should this rule be broken, the offender who has used the hekdesh items has done "me'ila" and, under certain circumstances is obligated to offer a special korban and pay to hekdesh the value of the item plus an added fifth of its value.

 

            Rami bar Chama refers to a scenario where a woman inherited hekdesh items, that had not yet been transferred to the Sanctuary. These items are automatically transferred to her husband, thereby violating their hekdesh status. The question is who is considered to have executed the me'ila. (As Rashi - s.v. Mi Ma'al - points out, the gemara assumes at this stage that me'ila is achieved by the mere transfer of the hekdesh items, even though they have not been used at all.)

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!