. [Ketuboth 78] Gemara. [This is in sharp contrast to the idea that many women have that they own whatever their husbands own.]

I wanted to bring the Maharsha concerning the subject of property that a woman owns before she gets married. [Ketuboth 78]
 Concerning an arusa  [betrothed] the Maharsha holds that R Yehuda holds if she sells her property as a arusa [betrothed] it is not valid but if she got it before she was an arusa  [betrothed] and then sells it when she is married then it is valid.

The Maharsha brings that this is the exact opposite of the reasoning of the Poskim..
The Maharsha does not bring this so much as a question but as a comment because he does offer an explanation. R Yehuda is going by the time she got the property and the Poskim are going by the time that she sells it.

My question at this point is that the very mishna that this is going on on page 78 a is subject to an argument between Rashi and Rabbainu Tam whether the sell that she sells her property after she is married but what she got before she was even betrothed--whether it is valid or not.

I do not know if I have a good point here or not. It is just that I think the Maharsha must be going either to Rashi or Rabbainu Tam and so his question would evaporate according to the other opinion. But I have not had a chance to look this up.]





[The background here is that property that a woman gets after she is married belongs to her husband. The questions here arise about property that she gets before she is married but then become betropthed or married  and then sells it. Is the sell valid/]

[This is in sharp contrast to the idea that many women have that they own whatever their husbands own.]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

There is a kind of interplay between DNA and ideals. The USA works to a large degree I think because of both its principles and also because of its principles coming out of many generations of conflict and thinking about politics and religion in England. [Not just the Magna Carta but especially looking at Daniel Defoe I saw this.--In where he deals with the issues facing England in the 1700's] There is a kind of conflict between the facts of DNA and ideals, between Darwin  and the ideals of John Locke. [Hegel would call this process a kind of dialectic between Being and the Absolute Idea. This is a good idea but I think it needs to be taken in context of the post Kant thinkers like Maimon, Shultze, Reinhold.] A lot depends on what kind of people you are dealing with before you can state a priori what kind of system they ought to live under in order to having tranquility and justice and freedom. It is hard to tell. On one hand you can see MacArthur imposing a kind of Ameri...
Read more
When I saw the importance of  learning metaphysics and physics in Ibn Pakuda's חובות הלבבות it did not click with me right away. I was at the Mir in NY and was not looking for distractions from learning Gemara. still something of what he was saying must have stuck with me because later when I saw the same thing in the Guide of the Rambam, it started making sense that maybe that was the aspect of learning Torah that I had been lacking. However I really was not sure what to do with the metaphysics aspect of the whole thing.  On one hand the Ibn Pakuda and rambam were clear they were not talking about mysticism. [No offence intended towards the Remak (Moshe Cordovaro) and the Ari (Isaac Luria). It is just that that is not what the Rambam was talking about.] But what can one do with Metaphysics? What could be considered the be fulfilling what the Rambam was saying? Aristotle and Plato for sure. I guess Plotinus also. But what about later on people? To make this short I should ...
Read more
Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle    brings the idea that units of social information get get into people's head's and then get hardwired. But I go further and claim that these memes are like the Alien that has a protection mechanism that when you try to take it out it sends out some kind of acid that makes things so bad that you dare not touch it. The whole idea of the Lucifer principle has to do with the super organism and is a way of understanding Hegel's more philosophical approach to the State.
Read more