Question about a woman who fell in front of a boil-stricken man
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask about the Hovah Amina in the Gemara Tractate Bk 11b: “A woman who fell before a stricken woman will be punished without a trial, because she did not sanctify herself.” The commentators make it difficult and make excuses there at length. But it is still difficult for me, why is there an understanding that when things go wrong, this constitutes sufficient cause to say that she did not sanctify herself on this account. After all, in many things in life, we do things, knowing and accepting that things can go wrong, and yet we do them – for example, we drive a car, invest in stocks, marry partners, give birth to children, and so on and so forth. In all of these things, we are aware of the dangers, and yet we consciously choose to take the risk (because overall the chance/risk ratio pays off for us). If so, how can we say that when the risk materializes, we can turn the wheel back and cancel the decision?
It could be added that in decisions/transactions that involve concealment of information or some kind of deception, perhaps the rule of buying a mistake can be applied there. But in cases where there was no intent to deceive/conceal (like Yevama who fell before Mocha Chichin), how does that apply?
Excellent question you asked. The things are long, delicate and very difficult.
1. The question is of course related to column 20 and the question of the utility function, since in my words I alluded to situations in which it is still possible to speak of the irrationality of the decision.
2. I would also like to point out that this is not just a matter of the Ha’A (as you wrote) but also of the conclusion to the law. According to most Rishonim, there are grounds for annulling the kiddushin by claiming “I know that” and they do not say “Tab Le Meitav”. In a man with a boil, no (according to the conclusion of the question there), but in a man with a boil or a convert, there are opinions that it is. In general, in the question there itself it is proven that way, because if there were no Tab Le Meitav, it is clear that it could be annulled. In a sale and purchase where there is no presumption of Tab Le Meitav, they certainly do so.
3. See my article where I dealt with all of this and also your question at length:
4. I will also note that these things are also related to the issue of reference in Sanhedrin 24b, since there is an opinion (Rambam) that playing with dice is reference. The Gemara itself brings another opinion (Rash) that it is not reference because he knows that he can lose or win. And again the question arises why for the Rambam it is reference, since this is his utility function. He takes into account that he may or may not gain.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
