Do we always compliment a kallah, calling her fair and attractive? What if she lame or blind, the rabbis argue? Beit Shammai say that we should always speak the truth. Beit Hillel argue that we do not diminish a man's acquisition; we enhance his new bride in his eyes. In different parts of the land, the rabbis sing to the kallah that even without rouge, eye shadow or braided hair, she is a graceful ibex. The same compliment was sung to Rabbi Zeira upon his ordination.
The rabbis share some of the greetings and standard sayings that were used in different situations. They also note that the tradition of dancing before the kallah and chatan, entertaining them, goes all the way back to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, who would dance on three myrtle branches that were juggled for the couple. And although Rav Aha suggests that he could carry the kallah on his shoulders, our Sages agree that men should not even look at the kallah's face - she is, after all, a married woman.
Because honouring life takes precedence over honouring death, the Rabbis believe that it would be logical to interrupt a funeral procession for a wedding procession. However, what if the king's procession was at the place of a wedding procession? We are obligated to choose kings and to honour them. The rabbis argue whether King Agrippa did the right thing when he interrupted his own procession for a wedding procession. They decide that it would have been inappropriate to dishonour the king in this way, and so the processions in question must have met at an intersection where there was a way to maintain the king's honour.
The rabbis take on how different people are honoured in death. A regular person, one who studies some Torah, a Torah scholar, etc. Interestingly, they note that a regular person requires only ten people. So how many people should be at a woman's funeral? The rabbis assume that she is not a scholar, so is ten people the appropriate number? But women are not obligated to learn Torah; should women not be honoured with 600,000 attendees - the same number as a Torah scholar who has learned both Bible and Mishna?
The Gemara returns to the question of how we determine whether a kallah was a widow or a virgin at the time of her wedding. What exactly is the hinnuma? Certainly it demonstrates virginity, but what is it? A veil, a canopy of myrtle? Certainly it denotes virginity. What about grains? How might grains be a certain sign of virginity? What if no-one throws grains; should the virgin kallah suffer for her community's actions? The rabbis suggest that there were two different dishes prepared with grains for weddings: fresh for virgins and toasted for widows, etc.
Our daf ends with a long discussion about the Mishna's statement about one who claims he bought his field from the claimant's father. Witnesses could denounce this assertion. The rabbis wonder people establish presumptive ownership. In ordinary circumstances, one can claim that land belongs to him if he has maintained and benefited from the land for at least three years. But if the land is willed to a minor, the rabbis appreciate that this boy might not understand his father's obligations or ownership, and thus the rabbis are lenient regarding time in such circumstances. My assumption is that when the rabbis speak of 'age of majority' they are referring to age thirteen, the religious age of majority. Could a thirteen year old child actually argue in the courts with a grown person who was living on his father's land?
The rabbis note that a person who is fleeing his land because of debts is able to file a protest regarding the land from afar. But if he is fleeing because his life has been threatened, he cannot protest from abroad. Thus he has no presumptive claim on the land. The rabbis note that there are jurisdictional considerations, as well. The person claiming presumptive ownership must be in the same 'country' as his opponent. That is, Both must be either in Judea, the Galilee or Transjordan. The rabbis decide that as long as communication is reasonable between the two countries in question, the protest of a previous owner of the field (lodged against the current occupier) negates any other claim to presumptive ownership. In a nutshell, the halacha protects landowners who have had to leave their land from claims by occupiers that the land is now theirs.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment