Rav and Shmuel argue whether an eishes ish who's husband dissappears for an extended period of time is given mezonos from his estate while he is gone. Shmuel says that we don't give mezonos for one of two reasons: 1. R' Zvid - we are concerned he left her with money for mezonos. 2. R' Papa - we are concerned that he said to her to use he ma'aseh yadayim in place of mezonos and she accepted it.
The gemara seems to assume that had he said that she should use ma'aseh yadayim in place of mezonos, she would have no claim on receiving mezonos so long as she accepted the deal. It seems clear that she does not have the right to back out of the deal, because otherwise there would be no concern to prevent her from getting mezonos. From the fact that she can't claim that she want mezonos and wants to back out of any deals that were made, implies that she cannot back out. Rashi indicates this by saying that only after he dies can she back out of the deal and not continue it with the yesomim. Tosafos also says explicitly that even if now she does not have sufficient ma'aseh yadayim to support herself, had she accepted the deal before he husbands departure, she is stuck and cannot demand mezonos.
The gemara seems to assume that had he said that she should use ma'aseh yadayim in place of mezonos, she would have no claim on receiving mezonos so long as she accepted the deal. It seems clear that she does not have the right to back out of the deal, because otherwise there would be no concern to prevent her from getting mezonos. From the fact that she can't claim that she want mezonos and wants to back out of any deals that were made, implies that she cannot back out. Rashi indicates this by saying that only after he dies can she back out of the deal and not continue it with the yesomim. Tosafos also says explicitly that even if now she does not have sufficient ma'aseh yadayim to support herself, had she accepted the deal before he husbands departure, she is stuck and cannot demand mezonos.
This seems to contradict Tosafos on 83a (d.h. k'drav kahana) who says that if a woman would tell her husband that she will not provide ma'aseh yadayim and will not demand mezonos, she can change her mind and go back on the deal at her will. Ran (58b) cites the Re'ah that once she make the deal she must stick to it and cannot go back on it, but the Rema (E.H. 69) holds like Rabbeinu Yerucham and Tosafos that she always retains the right to back out of the deal.
To reconcile the apparent contradiction in Tosafos, it would seem that although when she proposes the deal to keep her ma'aseh yadayim and not receive mezonos, she can go back at her will, but when he proposes the deal and she agrees, she is essentially being mochel any claim over mezonos and therefore is stuck to the deal even if she does not earn enough to feed herself.
1 comment:
Naftoli and I reconciled the difference between her ability to back out from her agreement with the yesomim and her inability to back out of her agreement when her husband is away by saying that she can back out only if the other party is present. The yesomim are present, but since the husband is not, she can't undo their agreement. We had no proof for this, but it seems logical. It would also work with Tosfos on 83a.
Post a Comment