Plaginan Psikuta
According to the Zichron Zvi Responsa to Rabbi Horowitz (Rav Kook Institute) C. 20 (found on the hebrewboos website)
And it is only after the death of the husband or the granting of a divorce that it is possible to say that she did not sanctify herself, and it is not found in the Shas, this concept is only found in the Yavma who fell before Mocha who was struck with boils, and in the Pizdah there is a root for the ruling on which the words of the Katar revolve.
I would be happy to hear the opinion of a Rabbi regarding what is said in the above book.
Appreciate and respect
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
Yes, several other poskim wrote before him.
I commented on this in my column (and also in the article linked there), and I said that in my opinion this is not a reasonable interpretation of the Gemara nor a reasonable position in Halacha.
In the case of the name Meiri, in this case, either because it is more common or because if it falls on a husband who is himself afflicted with boils, then it is a pishita that goes out without a get, because this is a mistaken purchase. Here, the discussion is on the interpretation of ada'ta dahki (that the defect is not in the purchase itself but in something side, and according to some commentators, the defect here arose after the moment of consecration and did not disappear from it during the consecration) and not on a mistaken purchase.
And in law, this is what I explained in the column itself.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer