תקעד. כתב מו' רבינו מאיר זצ"ל וז"ל כל היכא דקתני יוציא ויתן כתובה נהי דאין כופין אותו אלא בראי' ברורה מ"מ נפיק ממונא מיניה דכיון דחייבוהו חכמי' להוציא ולתת כתו' אם לא [הורשנו] לכוף להוציא ואם היינו כופין הו"ל מעושה שלא כדין מ"מ כתו' מ"ט לא [מקפי'] מיניה כיון דחייבוהו חכמי' בממון זה ולתת לה הלכך [מפקי'] מיניה כיון דחייבוה חכמי' בממון זה לתת לה הלכך מפקי' [מיניה] כתו' ויהבי' לה מאה ומאתים ונדוניא דהנעלת ליה אבל תוספת איכא פלוגתא דרבוותא ר"ת כתב לעיל בריש אע"פ (כתובות נ"ד ע"ב) דתוס' נמי אית [לה] דלכל מילי תנאי כתו' ככתו' דמי ור"ח כתב דוקא להני מילי דמייתי' בפ' אע"פ אמרי' תנאי כתובה ככתו' דמי למידי אחרינא לא ומספיקא לא מפקינן מיני' התוס' כיון דאפלגו ביה רבוותא.
Q. A has been dripping blood for the past four years. During that period he refrained from sexual intercourse with his wife on the ground that his doctors forbade him to have intercourse as it endangered his life. Is A to be considered a rebellious husband and hence should three denars per week be added to his wife's ketubah for the period of his abstention? A. Since A was forced by illness to refrain from intercourse with his wife, he is not to be considered a rebellious husband. A rebellious husband is one who refuses to live with his wife because he is angry with her or because he hates her. A person who is physically unable to live with his wife, however, is not considered a rebellious husband. A, however, must divorce his wife and must pay her the ketubah, since he is in the same category as a leper for whom coitus is harmful (Ket. 77b). Although A's sickness does not disable him permanently and is curable, we do not compel his wife to wait indefinitely in the hope that he might be cured. Thus Maimonides (M. T. Ishut 14, 7) rules that under such circumstances a woman must wait only six months. Although we have compared A to a leper for whom coitus is harmful, nevertheless we should not force A by flagellation to divorce his wife, but should only resort to persuasion. We should merely tell him the law requires him to divorce his wife and pay her the ketubah; should he refuse to do so, he would be called "transgressor". Whether A divorces her or not, however, we force him to pay his wife the Ikkar ketubah and her dowry, but we do not force him to pay her the additional jointure since some authorities hold the opinion that under the circumstances she is not entitled to the additional jointure. Should A's wife aver that she does not believe that A's doctors told him to refrain from sexual intercourse, and insist that he is a rebellious husband, he would have to take an oath in support of his assertions. Should A refuse to take the oath, we would have to add to his wife's ketubah three Tyrian denars per week for the entire period of his abstention. I have sufficient proof to support my view that the three denars prescribed by the Mishnah (Ket. 5, 7) mean Tyrian denars. Should A admit that he had refrained from sexual intercourse with his wife because he was angry with her and that he had lied about both his sickness and the advice of his doctors, and should he declare that he now desires to resume marital relations with her, the aforementioned amount would be added to her ketubah and she would be required to resume her marital duties. Regardless of what happened in the past, A may now claim that he is well and that he is able to live normally with his wife, since the truth of his claim is bound eventually to be proven or disproven. This Responsum is addressed to: "Rabbi Isaac, my relatives Rabbi Joel and Rabbi Ephraim". SOURCES: Sinai V (1941) pp. 203–6; ibid. pp. 294–5; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 159c; Pr. 574.
תקעד. כתב מו' רבינו מאיר זצ"ל וז"ל כל היכא דקתני יוציא ויתן כתובה נהי דאין כופין אותו אלא בראי' ברורה מ"מ נפיק ממונא מיניה דכיון דחייבוהו חכמי' להוציא ולתת כתו' אם לא [הורשנו] לכוף להוציא ואם היינו כופין הו"ל מעושה שלא כדין מ"מ כתו' מ"ט לא [מקפי'] מיניה כיון דחייבוהו חכמי' בממון זה ולתת לה הלכך [מפקי'] מיניה כיון דחייבוה חכמי' בממון זה לתת לה הלכך מפקי' [מיניה] כתו' ויהבי' לה מאה ומאתים ונדוניא דהנעלת ליה אבל תוספת איכא פלוגתא דרבוותא ר"ת כתב לעיל בריש אע"פ (כתובות נ"ד ע"ב) דתוס' נמי אית [לה] דלכל מילי תנאי כתו' ככתו' דמי ור"ח כתב דוקא להני מילי דמייתי' בפ' אע"פ אמרי' תנאי כתובה ככתו' דמי למידי אחרינא לא ומספיקא לא מפקינן מיני' התוס' כיון דאפלגו ביה רבוותא.
Q. A has been dripping blood for the past four years. During that period he refrained from sexual intercourse with his wife on the ground that his doctors forbade him to have intercourse as it endangered his life. Is A to be considered a rebellious husband and hence should three denars per week be added to his wife's ketubah for the period of his abstention?
A. Since A was forced by illness to refrain from intercourse with his wife, he is not to be considered a rebellious husband. A rebellious husband is one who refuses to live with his wife because he is angry with her or because he hates her. A person who is physically unable to live with his wife, however, is not considered a rebellious husband. A, however, must divorce his wife and must pay her the ketubah, since he is in the same category as a leper for whom coitus is harmful (Ket. 77b). Although A's sickness does not disable him permanently and is curable, we do not compel his wife to wait indefinitely in the hope that he might be cured. Thus Maimonides (M. T. Ishut 14, 7) rules that under such circumstances a woman must wait only six months. Although we have compared A to a leper for whom coitus is harmful, nevertheless we should not force A by flagellation to divorce his wife, but should only resort to persuasion. We should merely tell him the law requires him to divorce his wife and pay her the ketubah; should he refuse to do so, he would be called "transgressor". Whether A divorces her or not, however, we force him to pay his wife the Ikkar ketubah and her dowry, but we do not force him to pay her the additional jointure since some authorities hold the opinion that under the circumstances she is not entitled to the additional jointure. Should A's wife aver that she does not believe that A's doctors told him to refrain from sexual intercourse, and insist that he is a rebellious husband, he would have to take an oath in support of his assertions. Should A refuse to take the oath, we would have to add to his wife's ketubah three Tyrian denars per week for the entire period of his abstention. I have sufficient proof to support my view that the three denars prescribed by the Mishnah (Ket. 5, 7) mean Tyrian denars. Should A admit that he had refrained from sexual intercourse with his wife because he was angry with her and that he had lied about both his sickness and the advice of his doctors, and should he declare that he now desires to resume marital relations with her, the aforementioned amount would be added to her ketubah and she would be required to resume her marital duties. Regardless of what happened in the past, A may now claim that he is well and that he is able to live normally with his wife, since the truth of his claim is bound eventually to be proven or disproven.
This Responsum is addressed to: "Rabbi Isaac, my relatives Rabbi Joel and Rabbi Ephraim".
SOURCES: Sinai V (1941) pp. 203–6; ibid. pp. 294–5; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 159c; Pr. 574.