QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a "Mema'enes," a "Sheniyah," and an
"Ailonis" do not have rights to receive their Kesuvah, Peros, or Mezonos.
However, an Almanah who marries a Kohen Gadol, and a Gerushah who marries a
normal Kohen, do have rights to receive their Kesuvah, and they presumably
have rights to receive Peros and Mezonos as well, since the Chachamim did
not penalize those women.
The Gemara earlier (52a) records a Machlokes between Rava and Abaye
regarding whether a Kohen who is married to a Gerushah, or a Kohen Gadol
married to an Almanah, is obligated to redeem his wife from captivity. Abaye
says that he does have to redeem her, since the stipulation for redemption
that the Kohen wrote in the Kesuvah states, "If you are captured, I will
redeem you and *bring you back to your [father's] house*," and it does not
say, "If you are captured, I will redeem you and *take you back as my wife."
Therefore, it makes no difference whether his wife is permitted to him or
not, and the Kohen must redeem his wife.
Rava argues and says that he does not have to redeem her, because he intends
to obligate himself to redeem her if she is captured and to divorce her and
bring her to her father's house *only* if it was the captivity that made her
Asur to him, but not if she was already Asur to him.
RASHI explains that when the Mishnah mentions the right to receive Peros, it
is referring to the husband's obligation to redeem his wife. If so, since
the Mishnah says that an Almanah who married a Kohen Gadol *is* entitled to
Peros, meaning that she is entitled to be redeemed, why does the Gemara not
bring proof from our Mishnah for Abaye's opinion that a Kohen Gadol *is*
obligated to redeem his wife who is an Almanah? If, on the other hand, there
is a principle than any man -- who is married to a woman who is prohibited
to him -- is not obligated to redeem her, then why does the Mishnah have to
mention that a "Sheniyah" does not get Peros (i.e. redemption) because of a
special penalty imposed upon her? It has nothing to do with the penalty, but
rather he does not have to redeem her because there is no obligation to
redeem her as specified in the conditions set forth in the Kesuvah!
ANSWER: TOSFOS (52a, DH Mamzeres) answers that Rava and Abaye are arguing
over how to interpret the word "Peros" in the Mishnah. They are arguing
whether to interpret the Mishnah like Rashi's first explanation here or like
his second explanation.
Rava understands the Mishnah like Rashi's second explanation, that not only
is the husband of a "Sheniyah" not obligated to redeem her (and he is not
entitled to receive her Peros), but even if the husband takes the Peros when
he is not supposed to and he eats them thinking that he is entitled to
receive them because of the Tenai Kesuvah, then b'Di'eved he does not have
to compensate her. In the case of an Almanah married to a Kohen Gadol, the
husband does have to repay her if he eats her Peros unjustly. However, the
husband is exempt from the obligation to redeem her in all cases, according
to Rava's understanding of the Mishnah.
Abaye explains the Mishnah like Rashi's first explanation, that the husband
of a "Sheniyah" has no obligation to redeem her, whereas a Kohen Gadol
married to an Almanah *is* obligated to redeem her. (Abaye agrees that the
husband of a Mamzeres or Nesinah is not obligated to redeem her.)