New York – When she was born she was named after the great, great grandmother of Goliath. But others could not pronounce the name Orpah and the name Oprah stuck. She later became the first billionaire black woman. Our question is, if she were to be married would her husband be Yoresh her according to the laws of the Torah? If the issue were to be adjudicated (theoretically) in a Bais Din – what would they conclude?
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Today’s Daf (Bava Basra 112b) may have the answer to this question. The Gemorah deals with the issue that a woman is required to marry someone whose father is from the same shaivet that her father is from, and whose mother is from the same shaivet that her mother is from. From the fact that the Gemorah here concludes with the words Ka Mashma Lan, the Rishonim understand that Rav Ashi’s position is that the Yerusha of a husband is DeOraisa – biblical in origin.
The Rambam (Hilchos Nachalos 1:8 and 6:8), however, indicates that a husband inherits his wife only by Rabbinic decree. The Raavad, (1:8) according to the Maggid Mishna’s understanding, disagrees with the Rambam and holds that a husband inherits his wife by biblical law.
What is the practical halachic difference between the view of the Raavad and the Rambam? The Maggid Mishna suggests that according to the Rambam’s view that it is Rabbinic in origin, the husband can make a condition that he not inherit his wife. According to the Raavad such a condition is ineffective.
There is very likely, however, another practical difference between the views of the Rambam and the Raavad. Generally speaking, Rabbinic enactments are restricted only to Klal Yisroel. Torah laws for gentiles remain with the biblical status of things. Accordingly, if the Rambam’s view is the final halacha – then Oprah’s husband would not be able to inherit her. According to the Raavad – he would be able to inherit her.
In this theoretical Bais Din case between Oprah’s would be husband and her maternal relatives, the husband who takes possession might be able to claim “Kim Li” like the Raavad. After the advent of Mashiach and as we see in the Rosh HaSHana davening (VeYaasu Kulam agudah achas..) the non-Jewish legal systems will surely attempt as much as possible to conform to Jewish law. This question and debate, therefore, will have enormous consequences in the future.
This edition of VINDAF VIEWS has been sponsored for the refuah Shliemah of Rachel Bas Turan ..
Sponsorships of the Daf l’ilui nishmas are also available. For further information please email [email protected]
“The Maggid Mishna suggests that according to the Rambam’s view that it is Rabbinic in origin, the husband can make a condition that he not inherit his wife. According to the Raavad such a condition is ineffective.”
Why would it be ineffective, though? Wouldn’t it be a תנאי שבממון, which is valid even where it contradicts Torah law?
Everybody ends up happier under the American Legal System: wives inherit the entire estate upon the demise of their husbands and vice versa. Children can receive “monetary gifts” upon the death of a parent if it is stipulated in their will and all of the children (male and female) inherit the net estate upon the deaths of both parents, usually equally. In biblical days, a Canaanis or Cushis like Oprah would never have amassed so much wealth anyway so the whole argument is moot.
Can there be a better analogy to learn this gemara?
I just can’t see the gedolim giving a shiur in some yeshiva and talking about Oprah.
Tosfos in mesechta says……. and Rashi over there is a stirah to the ………..and Oprah? it just does not fit.
I ask the same question, why would they be discussing Oprah. Why would a non-Jew be obligated to halachic ruling. There are Noahide laws for non-Jews. What’s wrong with everyone?