About this episode
Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of her father, Armin Abramson, Hershel Tzvi Shlomo Chaim ben Dina Sara and Pesach's 5th yahrzeit. "He was always amazed by the topics the rabbis discussed and the details they considered." In the case brought before Ilfa regarding the stipulations made by a father on his deathbed for sustenance for his sons, we rule that no matter what his language, we give the sons the amount they need for food. How does this correspond to the ruling of Rabbi Meir that we take very seriously what people say on their deathbed? A Mishna in Gittin 59a says that when children are old enough to understand the meaning of a sale, their sale is valid, even before they reach the age of maturity. However, this is limited to a case where the father did not set up an agent to be in charge of their inheritance. This law is derived from our Mishna. Someone who takes a vow to forbid his wife to benefit from him, can he stay married to her? If so, how does she get sustenance? At what point do we insist he divorce her? What other types of vows that a husband can make against the wife are cause for divorce? How can the husband even make sure a vow to forbid her to benefit from him if he is obligated to provide her with food? In order to answer this question, the Gemara assumes that the Mishna is referring to a more unique case where the husband told her to keep her salary and he will not pay for her food. An alternative suggestion is that the case if when he vowed during their betrothal period, before he became obligated to pay for her food. and then the time came for him to marry her and he was then obligated to pay for her food. A third possibility is that she was betrothed and then they got married. This possibility is then rejected. According to the Mishna, if he vows that she not benefit for 30 days, he sets up someone else to feed her. How can this work if, in the end, she benefits indirectly from the husband as the other person acts as a messenger of the husband? Rav Huna explains that the intermediary must not be acting as his messenger but on his own as the husband says, "He who wants to provide her with food will not lose out." Even though the husband will compensate him later, he is doing it by his own choice. A few questions are raised against Rav Huna but are answered.