As we finished the introduction to Masechet Kiddushin, we started the Mishna as is procedurally done when beginning a Masechet or Perek. The Mishna we have learned spoke of six very similar Halachot with some contrasts. The first Halachah in the Mishna said that a man can marry a woman independently. Now, I have a question. Is the first Halacha not already obvious? I mean to say is that, obviously a man can marry a woman. What would be thought otherwise? We have not yet answered this question, but I am just expressing the way I feel about this Halacha. The second Halacha said a man can even marry a woman through a messenger. Hold up for a second. Is marriage a superficial thing that one can marry through messengers? This Halacha is almost like turning marriage into a business deal. So you one day decide to get married for social reasons, and you say to your assistant, “Go get me a woman to marry.” Is this what marriage is supposed to be like? I always thought that marriage must inherently have love and a commitment to be together for life.
The third Halacha this Mishnah mentions is that a woman can marry a man. I say, Kol HaKavod! Would we not already know that the woman can marry the man since the man can marry the woman!!! If the man marries the wife, what is the wife doing? I will gladly answer that question. She is marrying him! The Mishna won’t say the woman cannot marry the man and say that the man can marry the woman because it is impossible. If one marries the other, the other marries him or her. Obviously this is redundant and must be explained. Another question I have here: If the woman can marry the man, is it not obvious that the man can marry a woman? This question is for a different reason than the first. Men can do what woman can do and more. If someone like, let us say, a woman can lift 20 pounds or pass a class, then, Kal Vachomer a man can. So too, a man can obviously marry a woman if a woman can marry a man. Seemingly, the Mishna should have just started off with Halacha 3. The fourth Halacha said that a woman can marry by a messenger. This Halacha seems to tell us that Halacha 2 is obvious. So I repeat, seemingly, the Mishna should began with the third Halacha.
The fifth Halacha said that a father can marry off his adolescent daughter. This seems pretty strange. Shouldn’t the daughter make sure she loves the man the father is setting her up with and wants to spend the rest of her life with him? It seems that the father has control over her life, but isn’t it known that her father cannot control her health. For example, if the daughter wants to eat whole wheat bread, her father cannot force her to eat white bread. Therefore, the father also should not have control over his daughter's life in marriage. The six Halacha said her father can marry off her adolescent daughter by a messenger. This Halacha has all the problems I previously mentioned.
After I read the Mishna, I could not possibly imagine the amount of questions the Gemara would come up with if I, a student of the Margolin Hebrew Academy in Memphis, TN, came up with all of these questions. This anticipation kept me on the edge of my seat till I knew what will happen next.
This is a very insightful essay Josh, but i am disagree with one idea you put forth. You said that the Mishna should just begin with the third and fourth halachas that say a woman can do kiddushin through herself or a messenger, and not have to include the first two halachas that say a man can do kiddushin through himself or a messenger. You said the first two were not needed because if a woman can marry a man Kal V'chomer a man can marry a woman. I disagree with this statement. I could see your point making sense in that men have more mitzvos in the torah and therefore if a woman can do a mitzva, a man can do a mitzva. But i also disagree with parts of that logic, and i will show why through an example. It is a mitzva for women to light shabbos candles. However, men are not obligated in this mitzva. So therefore you cannot derive that if women do a task, then men should also do that task because it is totally sufficient for just women to light the shabbos candles. Men get no extra merit for lighting the Shabbos candles if they are already lit by a woman, or else you would see men lighting shabbos candles too (but you don't). Also, women can do things that men can't do in general. Women can give birth, but man cannot give birth. Therefore the Kal Vchomer does not work that if a woman can do something kal vchomer a man can do it too.
ReplyDeleteI think i have an answer to your question. You asked why the Gemara doesn't just say the third and fourth Halacha and we would learn the first two Halachos from a Kal Va'Chomer. The answer is almost the same as Rav Yosef's answer of Mitzva Bo Yoter MiVeshlucha. According to Rambam, it is a Mitzva on the man to get married, and according to the Me'iri and the Maharashal, it is not a Mitzva for a woman to get married but it is preferred. If we just tried to derive the first two Halachos from a Kal Va'Chomer given by the third and fourth Halachos, we would think that it's a bigger Mitzva for a woman to get married than a man. So the Mishna states the first two Halachos to teach that it is a Mitzva for a man to get married and not a woman.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Gabe but I do not completely agree with you. I do not think that we would've thought that it is a greater mitzvah for a woman to get married than it is for a man because we already know that it is a mitzvah for both of them to get married. I still think that Josh's question stands. Can't we just learn out that a woman can do kedushin by herself and with a messenger by the first two halachos that a man can do it by himself or with a mseenger? I would think that we coul learn it out from the first two just like we are learning out all of these concepts of schlichos currently from other cases of schlichos. So again, why would the mishnah need to use extra words?
ReplyDeleteAkiva, your argument is not sound simply because you didn't give an argument. So before you just up and disregard my answer, why don't you give an argument that makes sense? (i.e. I said the woman DOESN'T have a Mitzva to get married. If I'm wrong, please give proof rather than just stating it).
ReplyDelete