on today’s daf
(=page) teaches a halakhah
in the interest of protecting the interests of the arev
– an individual who guaranteed payment – in the case of a ketubah
. When a couple gets married, the marriage contract guarantees payment to the wife in the event of her husband’s death or divorce. If theketubah
payment was made by the arev
rather than by the husband himself, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel required the husband to take a vow that his ex-wife can no longer derive benefit from him. This was done in order to avoid the possibility that the couple would conspire to have the arev
pay her so that they could then remarry.
In illustrating this ruling, the Gemara
tells of a man named Moshe
bar Atzari who had agreed to guarantee his daughter-in-law’s ketubah
. His son, was in difficult financial straights, and
raised the idea that he should divorce his wife, and after his father paid the ketubah
he should remarry her. When
pointed out that he would be required to take the vow according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ruling, Abayye argues that if they got divorced out of court, no one would require him to do so. In the end, it turned out that it was a family ofkohanim, so it would have been impossible for him to divorce and remarry his wife.
The Gemara expresses shock at Abayye’s suggestion, given that Abayye is known to refer to someone who recommends such a course of action in a similar case (see Bava Batra daf 137b
) as a rasha arum
– an evil trickster. The Gemara responds that this case is unique because Huna’s father certainly wanted to help out his son, especially since he was a scholar.
The explains that he is a rasha (an evildoer) because he negates the wishes of the person who gave him the gift, and he is arum (a trickster) because he can successfully arrange for the gift to end up in the hands of another. He adds that Abayye only applies this appellation to someone who advises to do this. The person who does it, who is simply looking out for his own interests, would not be considered a rasha for doing this.