Translate

23.6.17

Gemara Ketuboth 83b,Rav Shach

I  do not have much to add. And I do not actually have a Gemara to be able to look anything up.
But right now I would like to add some clarity to an idea that Rav Shach has concerning the Rambam in Laws of Marriage chapter 23 halacha 3.

I had two points. One is if I remember the Gemara Ketuboth 83b  correctly then I have away of showing with much force how the way Rav Shach says the Rambam understands it comes out much more forcefully than I think he puts it. To put it as bluntly as possible the  way our Gemara reads makes no sense. So in the first place it never made any sense to bring a question from t to the Rambam.
The other thing I wanted to show was simply to show how Rav Shach explains the Rambam and how it fit beautifully with the version that it seems Rashi must have had and the Rambam also.
That is I wanted to show how important it is that the Gemara means the husband leaves over from the fruit. For if that is the right way to read the Gemara then the Rambam comes out perfectly because he anyway has removed himself from the fruit. So the only thing it could mean is the he lacks some right in the fruit.

So with no further ado let me say over what I think the Gemara says there [Ketuboth 83b]. A question was raised. A husband removes himself from any right to the fruit of the fruit. Has he remove himself from the everything--that is also the fruit, or not? It must be he removes himself from everything because if he did not remove himself from the fruit and he eats it then from where comes the fruit of the fruit? But then according to that reasoning what about the Mishna that says (I am guessing here): R. Yehuda says he always eats the fruit of the fruit. [That is when he removes himself from the fruit he still eats the fruit of the fruit. How can that be? So it must means some of the fruit was left over. So in our case some of the fruit was left over.
From this Gemara the Rosh asks on the Rambam הלכות אישות כ''ג: ג and R. Akiva Eigger says it is a unanswerable question on the Rambam. And Rav Shach does answer it and to me the answer to so blatantly right that I can not see how anyone could have asked on the Rambam.

In short, the Rambam says when the husband removes himself from the fruit land is bought with it and he eats the fruit of the fruit. The question of the Rosh is that that does not fit with the gemara at all. The Gemara is clear that she has let over from the fruit and if that happens then land is bought with it an he eats the fruit of the land. It can not mean he left over from it because he has no right to it in the first place after he removed himself from it.  That is the question of the Rosh.
Rav Shach shows how there existed another version of the Gemara that Rashi is trying to avoid. But you can see in Rashi that the original version was this: They asked if he removes himself from the fruit of the fruit does he eat the fruit?  It must be yes  because otherwise from where would the fruit of the fruit come from? Answer. he left over.

Frankly I can not see how any other version of that Gemara could possibly make any sense. From just think about it in the version we have with Rashi. The Gemara is bothered by from the the fruit of the fruit would come from if there is no fruit (that is he eats the fruit)? That means it should be perfectly happy with the opposite scenario of his eating the fruit of the fruit but not the fruit. But then that is the exact thing the Gemara asks on! The beginning of the Gemara does not and can not fit with the end. The only reasonable version is that that Rav Shach suggests.And if that is the case then we are left with the original question what could it mean he leaves over from the fruit if he anyway removed himself from it? So to make sense of  this the Rambam had to say the the husband lacks ownership in the fruit. He can eat it but he does not own it.